The Rules of Matn Criticism There Are No Rules Islamic Law and Society PDF

Islamic Law
and
Society
Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 356-396 www.brill.com/ils
e Rules of Matn Criticism: ere Are No Rules
Jonathan A.C. Brown
Abstract
In an eort to avoid the subjectivity of individual reason, Sunni Islam elaborated a
method of adth criticism that subordinated evaluating the meaning of a report to
an examination of its chain of transmission. With the fourth/tenth-century episte-
mological compromise of Asharism, however, Sunni adth scholars adopted rationalist
criteria of content criticism that included explicit rules for rejecting adths because
of their meaning. is resulted in a strong internal tension within Sunni adth
criticism from the fth/eleventh century onwards, with one and the same scholar
upholding rigid rules of content criticism but not employing them or even rejecting
them in application. e inherent subjectivity of content criticism resulted in dierent
Muslim scholars either rejecting or arming the same adths. Some scholars were
much more inclined to reject a adth out of hand because of its meaning, while
others were willing to extend a adth more interpretive charity. e tension created
by the subjectivity of content criticism emerged in unprecedented relief in the modern
period, when science and modern social norms presented an unmatched challenge
to the interpretive awe in which pre-modern (and Traditionalist scholars today) held
attributions to the Prophet.
I am afraid to tell you how many ships there are on this river, for fear I should
be called a liar.
Marco Polo on the river commerce of China1
When Marco Polo was the rst and only one to speak of the grandeur and popu-
lation of China, he was not believed, but nor could he demand such belief. e
Portuguese, who entered that vast empire several centuries later, began making
Correspondence: Jonathan A.C. Brown, 3700 O St. NW, ICC 260,Washington DC 20057;
e-mail: brownj2@georgetown.edu
1)
Marco Polo, e Travels, trans. Ronald Latham (New York: Penguin Books, 1958), 201.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/156851912X639923
J.A.C. Brown / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 356-396 357
such [claims] probable. Today it is a certainty born of the unanimous testimony

of a thousand eyewitnesses from dierent nations, without any person claiming
the opposite.
Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary2
Introduction
The extent to which Muslim adth critics examined the contents of
reports attributed to the Prophet has been hotly debated by Muslim
and non-Muslim scholars of Islam alike.3 In an earlier article, I dem-
onstrated how formative figures in the Sunni adth tradition such as
al-Bukhr (d. 256/870) and Muslim (d. 261/875) explicitly rejected
certain adths because they found their contents unacceptable. Among
the reasons for which such third/ninth and fourth/tenth-century Sun-
nis dismissed adths we find historical anachronism, logical impossibil-
ity and, most prominently, incompatibility with historical, legal and
dogmatic received opinion.4 However, it is also obvious that these same
adth critics often approved of adths that we might view as suffering
from exactly these same flaws. Short of discovering manuscripts in
which a scholar like al-Bukhr demystifies his methods, we can never
know why a scholar rejected anachronism in one adth while accept-
ing it in another, why one scholar found a adth to be logically absurd
2)
Voltaire, Histoire, in Dictionnaire Philosophique (Paris: Boudouin Frres, 1829), 56:18.
3)
See, for example, Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, trans. S.M. Stern and C.R. Barber
(Chicago: Aldine Atherton, 1971), 2:140-1; Alfred Guillaume, e Traditions of Islam: An
Introduction to the Study of the Hadith Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), 80;
Encyclopaedia of Islam 2 (Brill CD-ROM 1.0 1999, henceforth EI2), idem, s.v. Matn (A.J.
Wensinck); Joseph Schacht, e Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1950), 3; James Robson, Muslim Tradition: e Question of Authenticity, Memoirs
and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society 93 (1951-52): 88; idem,
Djar wa tadl, EI2; Gustave E. von Grunebaum, Medieval Islam, 2nd ed. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1953), 111; Fazlur Rahman, Islam, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1979), 64-6; G.H.A. Juynboll, e Authenticity of the Tradition Literature:
Discussions in Modern Egypt (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969), 139; F.E. Peters, e Quest of the
Historical Muhammad, International Journal of Middle East Studies 23 (1991): 299, 302;
Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1991), 71;
Tarif Khalidi, Classical Arab Islam (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1985), 42.
4)
Jonathan Brown, How We Know Early adth Critics Did Matn Criticism and Why
Its So Hard to Find, Islamic Law and Society 15, no. 2 (2008): 143-84.
358 J.A.C. Brown / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 356-396
while his coreligionist did not. This quandary places us squarely in front
of the great challenge of content criticism: its inherent subjectivity. The
valence of a text and whether its meaning clashes with some greater
authority are decided by the reader. And readers all too often differ.
It was precisely the pitfall of the subjectivity of reason that Sunni
Islam was designed to avoid. One of the original hallmarks of the ahl
al-adth/Sunni movement5 was the principle of subordinating reason
to revealed text. Human reason, with its idiosyncrasies, whims, and
mercurial understandings of the possible and impossible, cannot pro-
vide a sound religious guide. True guidance comes from revelation
alone. Sunni scholars never doubted the attribution of the Qurn to
its divine source, but individual adths were frequently not immedi-
ately traceable to the Prophet. The Prophets true words might be
divinely revealed guidance, but how could one evaluate whether a state-
ment attributed to him was authentic or not? The Mutazil rationalist
school proposed that putative adths be compared against the Qurn
and first principles of reason. Early Sunnis saw this as, once again,
making human reason the judge over revelation. One person might
think that a adth contradicts the Qurn; another might feel it merely
explains a non-obvious meaning in the holy book. One person might
think that a adth has a logically impossible meaning; another might
conclude that its meaning is figurative. Again, religion finds itself
beholden to the subjective whims of reason.6
5)
e synonymy of the term e People of the Sunna and the Collective (ahl al-sunna
wal-jama) and the People of adth (ahl al-adth) among those who identied
themselves as such in the third/ninth century is, in my view, beyond dispute. See, for
example, the Jmi of al-Tirmidh (d. 279/892), where the author refers to the bil kayf
treatment of adths on Gods attributes as being the school of Mlik, Ibn al-Mubrak and
others, calling them the ahl al-sunna wal-jama (I believe this is one of the earliest attested
usages of this phrase) on one occasion and the ahl al-adth on another. At another point
in the book, al-Tirmidh quotes his teacher, al-Bukhr, as saying that the party (ifa)
that will always hold to the truth, as mentioned in adths, is the ahl al-adth (al-Bukhr
quotes his own teacher Al b. al-Madn as his source); Jmi al-Tirmidh: kitb al-zakt,
bb m ja f fal al-adaqa; kitb ifat al-janna, bb m ja f khuld ahl al-janna wa ahl
al-nr; kitb al-tan, bb m ja f al-aimma al-muilln.
6)
For an in-depth discussion of this subject, see Brown, How We Know Early adth
Critics, 164 .
The early Sunnis proposed their system of transmission criticism as

a way to exclude reason from the evaluation of a adths authenticity.
Yet they nonetheless sensed the problematic meanings of some adths.
On rare occasions they openly stated this. On all occasions, however,
the cult of submission to the transmitted text was maintained. These
scholars assumed that flawed matns were the result of some flaw in
transmission and phrased their criticism in the language of transmission
criticism. This upheld the image of an impersonal and objective system
of criticism, but in fact the subtle machinations of subjectivity contin-
ued to affect Sunni adth critics.
In time, the role of content criticism received open recognition.
Despite their triumph over Abbasid Mutazilism in the mid-third/ninth
century, Sunni scholars adopted much of Mutazil epistemology into
Sunni theology and legal theory. Part of this acquired heritage was a list
of criteria for identifying a forged adth based solely on its contents.7
This set of criteria has since been upheld by generations of Sunni adth
scholars up to the present day.
At the same time, however, and often by the same people, we find
Sunni scholars reasserting the original Sunni rejection of content criti-
cism in favor of submission to the cult of transmission. The inherent
and inevitable subjectivity of content criticism appears clearly in Sunni
critics treatment of specific adthswhere one jurist or commentator
sees an absurd or sacrilegious attribution to the Prophet, another sees
a piece of Prophetic wisdom that had perhaps simply been misunder-
stood. Moreover, we see that certain adth scholars from the fourteenth
to the seventeenth centuries CE were consistently more at ease with
content criticism than others who favored interpretive charity and sub-
mitting to transmitted text.
Although the subjective tensions inherent in content criticism have
appeared since the early Islamic period, they have manifested themselves
with novel salience in the modern age. In the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, many Muslim reformists found themselves con-
fronted with the same quandary faced by European Christians in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Should the world and our scien-
tific perception of it conform to scripture, or does something that claims
7)
Brown, How We Know Early adth Critics, 150-3.
to be scripture need to conform to our understanding of the world? Is

scripture and the narrative it presents ontologically precedent to his-
tory and the external world?8 Many adths that were rejected by Mus-
lim reformists like Rashd Ri (d. 1935) in the light of modern
scientific discoveries or rational sensibilities had in fact been investi-
gated on similar grounds in the pre-modern period. Whereas medieval
Muslim ulam had adopted figurative or charitable readings of these
adths out of awe for Prophetic transmission,9 the heady winds of
modernity led Muslim reformists to dismiss them roundly because of
their content.
Arming the Rules for Content Criticism in Sunni Islam

Since the fifth/eleventh century, Sunni scholarship on the methodology
of adth evaluation has consistently and explicitly affirmed the role of
content criticism as a method of evaluating a adths reliability with
no reference to its isnd. The notion that the contents of a adth alone
can reveal its unreliability is rooted in opinions attributed to pioneering
adth masters in works as early as that of Ibn Sad (d. 230/845). Such
reports include the Successor Rab b. Khuthaym (fl. 80/700) stating,
Indeed there are adths that have a light as bright as day that we know
[to be authentic], and there are others possessed of a darkness that is
rejected. This declaration was widely cited in discussions of adth
critical methodology in the fifth/eleventh-century works of al-kim
al-Naysbr (d. 405/1014) and al-Khab al-Baghdd (d. 463/1071).10
8)
Hans Frei, e Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: a Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century
Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 5.
9)
Here I am consciously building on what Gershom Scholem called the awe of the text,
which, he explains, is founded on the assumption that everything already exists in it, and
the presumptuousness of imposing the truth upon ancient texts; Gershom Scholem, e
Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 290. I thank Joel Blecher
for this citation.
10)
Muammad Ibn Sad, Kitb al-abaqt al-kabr, ed. Al Muammad Umar, 11 vols.
(Cairo: Maktabat al-Khnj, 2001), 8:306; Ab Ysuf Yaqb b. Sufyn al-Fasaw, al-Marifa
wal-trkh, ed. Akram iy al-Umar, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Beirut: Muassasat al-Risla,
1401/1981), 2:564; Ab Amad Abdallh Ibn Ad, al-Kmil f uaf al-rijl, 7 vols.
(Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, 1405/1985), 1:69; al-kim al-Naysbr, Marifat ulm al-adth,
ed. Muaim usayn (Hyderabad: Dirat al-Marif al-Uthmniyya, 1385/1966), 78;
A famous statement attributed to Al b. Ab lib also gained currency

in this period: Indeed the truth is not known by men/transmitters.
Rather, know the truth and you will know its men/transmitters.11 This
maxim was immortalized by Ab mid al-Ghazl (d. 505/1111) in
his Iy ulm al-dn, in which he used it to argue that a science should
not be judged by the failures of some of its practitioners.12 This saying
has been repeated in adth writings up to the present day, with some
incorrectly attributing it to the Prophet.13 Most recently, the Moroccan
adth scholar Amad al-Ghumr (d. 1960) phrased it as a final con-
clusion of his work on forged adths: Look at what is said, do not
look at who said it (unur il al-maql wa l tanur il man ql).14
The legitimacy and methodological prominence of content criticism,
however, became most clearly enshrined in Sunni works on the meth-
ods, practice and technical terms of adth study (mualat al-adth).
In the fifth/eleventh century, Sunni adth scholars imported from
Mutazil epistemology a set of criteria by which the contents of a adth
could be used to determine its authenticity.15 Amongst Sunnis, the
taxonomy of these telltale content features originates in the work of
al-Khab al-Baghdd, who listed them in his monumental treatise on
the adth sciences, al-Kifya f ilm al-riwya.
al-Khab al-Baghdd, al-Kifya f marifat ul ilm al-riwya, ed. Ab Isq Ibrhm

Muaf al-Dimy, 2 vols. (Cairo: Dr al-Hud, 1423/2003), 2:555. e third/ninth-
century transmitter critic Ibrhm b. Yaqb al-Jzajn (d. 259/873) states, I seek refuge
with God that I would mention the Messenger of God () in a adth that digs into
my heart (yauzzu); Ibrhm b. Yaqb al-Jzajn, Awl al-rijl, ed. ub al-Badr
al-Smarr (Beirut: Muassasat al-Risla, 1405/1985), 163.
11)
Al says to al-rith b. : y rith innahu malbs alayka inna al-aqq l yurafu
bil-rijl irif al-aqq tarif ahlahu. See Ab Abdallh Muammad b. Amad al-Qurub,
al-Jmi li-akm al-Qurn, ed. Muammad Ibrhm al-ifnw and Mamd mid
Uthmn, 20 vols. in 10 (Cairo: Dr al-adth, 1414/1994), 1:350 (in the context of
Qurn 2:42).
12)
Ab mid al-Ghazl, Iy ulm al-dn, 4 vols. ([Cairo]: al-Mabaa al-Uthmniyya
al-Miriyya, 1352/1933), 1:47.
13)
For a discussion of this mistaken attribution to the Prophet, see Mull Al al-Qri,
al-Man f marifat al-adth al-maw, ed. Abd al-Fatt Ab Ghudda, 6th ed. (Beirut:
Dr al-Bashir al-Islmiyya, 1426/2005), 206.
14)
Amad b. al-iddq al-Ghumr, al-Mughr al al-adth al-mawa f al-Jmi
al-aghr (Beirut: Dr al-Rid al-Arab, 1402/1982), 139.
15)
Jonathan Brown, How we Know Early adth Critics, 151-2.
In this work, al-Khab explains that there exists an entire category

of adths that are immediately clear as forgeries on the basis of their
contents alone. These consist of reports that either:
1) reason (al-uql) rejects as impossible, such as the notion that there is no

Creator;
2) contradict the Qurn, the massively transmitted Sunna of the Prophet
(al-sunna al-mutawtira) or the consensus of the Muslim community;
3) are transmitted by limited narrations but address a topic so important for
Muslims that, if the adth were truly the Prophets words, it would have
been much more widely transmitted;
4) Or recount events so momentous that if the report were true it would
have been more widely transmitted.16
The list of culpatory contents registered by al-Khab influenced almost

every significant Sunni scholar writing on adth criticism after him.
It formed the basis for later discussions of content criticism. In his
famous Muqaddima, Ibn al-al (d. 643/1245) adds a summary of
al-Khabs list that encompasses form as well as content: clear signs of
forgery include feeble or preposterous wording or meaning (rakkat
alfih wa manh).17 A separate stream of empirically-based content
criticism was introduced by Umar b. Badr al-Mawil (d. 622/1225)
and al-asan al-aghn (d. 650/1252), an Indian adth scholar who
traveled to Baghdad and eventually returned to his homeland as the
Abbasid emissary to the Delhi Sultanate. Al-Mawil compiled a book
entitled al-Mughn an al-if wal-kitb f-m lam yaia shay f al-bb
(Sufficing one from Memorization and Books on Issues on which there are
No Reliable adths). In his collection of forged adths, al-aghn lists
topics on which one only finds forged adths.18 This notion was further
developed by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 750/1351), who provided a
more comprehensive list of categories of forged adths, such as adths
16)
Al-Khab al-Baghdd, al-Kifya f marifat ul ilm al-riwya, 1:89; idem, al-Faqh
wal-mutafaqqih, ed. Isml al-Anr, 2 vols. in 1 ([n.p.]: Dr Iy al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya,
1395/1975), 1:132-3.
17)
Ab Amr Uthmn Ibn al-al, Muqaddimat Ibn al-al, ed. isha Abd al-Ramn
(Cairo: Dr al-Marif, 1411/1990), 279.
18)
Ab al-Fail al-asan b. Muammad al-aghn, al-Mawt, ed. Abdallh al-Q
(Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1405/1985), 4-18.
on the enigmatic sage al-Khair, adths denigrating black Africans,

adths predicting that on such-and-such a date such-and-such a thing
will happen, adths promising excessive rewards or punishments for
insignificant deeds, and adths resembling the instructions of a doctor
more than those of the Prophet.19
The content criteria developed by al-Khab, Ibn al-al, and, in
the case of later Salaf scholars, those of Ibn al-Qayyim,20 were further
upheld and digested by jurists and adth critics from every part of the
Sunni scholarly spectrum. These include scholars such as: Ibn al-Jawz
(d. 597/1201) (who stated famously that any adth that you see con-
tradicting what is known by reason [al-maql] or fundamental prin-
ciples [al-ul], know that it is forged),21 Muy al-Dn al-Nawaw (d.
676/1277), Shams al-Dn al-Dhahab (d. 748/1348), Ibn Kathr (d.
774/1373), Zayn al-Dn al-Irq (d. 806/1404), Ibn ajar al-Asqaln
(d. 852/1449), Shams al-Dn al-Sakhw (d. 901/1497), Jall al-Dn
al-Suy (d. 911/1505), Ibn al-Arrq (d. 963/1556), Muammad Ibn
al-Amr al-ann (d. 1768 CE), Murta al-Zabd (d. 1791 CE),
Shh Abd al-Azz al-Dihlaw (d. 1824 CE), Abd al-ayy al-Laknaw
(d. 1886-7 CE), Muammad Maf al-Turmus (d. 1911 CE), Jaml
al-Dn al-Qsim (d. 1914 CE), Amad Shkir (d. 1958 CE), ub
al-li (d. 1986 CE), Amad al-Ghumr (d. 1960 CE), the Indian
Deobandi scholar Muammad Idrs al-Kndhlaw (d. 1974), Nr
al-Dn Itr and Mohammad Hashim Kamali.22 Of course, these schol-
19)
Shams al-Dn Muammad b. Ab Bakr Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, al-Manr al-munf f
al-a wal-af, ed. Abd al-Fatt Ab Ghudda, 11th ed. (Beirut: Maktab al-Mabt
al-Islmiyya, 1325/2004), 51 .
20)
Interestingly, Ibn al-Qayyims list of criteria was drawn from and quoted directly by Ibn
ajar al-Haytam (d. 974/1566), an avowed opponent of Ibn al-Qayyims mentor Ibn
Taymiyya; Shihb al-Dn Amad Ibn ajar al-Haytam, al-Fatw al-adthiyya, ed.
Muammad Abd al-Ramn al-Marashl (Beirut: Dr Iy al-Turth al-Arab, 1419/
1998), 252; Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Manr al-munf, 76-7.
21)
Amad al-Ghumr understands ul dierently, contending that by yunqiu al-ul
Ibn al-Jawz meant the established body of adths recorded in collections. In other words,
if you nd a adth that has not been previously recorded anywhere, then you know it is
a forgery. See Amad al-Ghumr, al-Mathnn wal-battr f nar al-and al-mithr al-in
f-m aa min al-sunan wal-thr (Cairo: al-Mabaa al-Islmiyya, 1352/1933), 34.
22)
Abd al-Ramn Ibn al-Jawz, Kitb al-Mawt, ed. Abd al-Ramn Muammad
Uthmn, 3 vols. (Medina: al-Maktaba al-Salayya, 1386-88/1966-68), 1:106; Jall al-Dn
al-Suy, Tadrb al-rw f shar Taqrb al-Naww, ed. Abd al-Wahhb Abd al-Laf, 3rd
ars regularly reminded their readers that, before dismissing a problem-

atic matn, one should first try to find an exonerating interpretation for
it. As al-Suy puts it tersely, What contradicts the Qurn or the
massively transmitted Sunna must be reconciled through interpretation
(tawl ), and what cannot be reconciled is false.23
In what may be an acknowledgement of the inevitably subjective
nature of determining unacceptable contents, many Sunni scholars
sought to ground content criticism in a sort of expert subjectivity. Early
works on adth criticism had compared the ability of a critic to pick
ed. (Cairo: Maktabat Dr al-Turth, 1426/2005), 213; Shams al-Dn al-Dhahab, al-Mqia
f ilm muala al-adth, ed. Abd al-Fatt Ab Ghudda, 4th ed. (Cairo: Dr al-Salm,
1421/2000), 36-7; Ibn Kathr and Amad Shkir, al-Bith al-athth shar Ikhtir Ulm
al-adth, ed. Amad Shkir (Cairo: Dr al-Turth, 1423/2003), 65-70; Zayn al-Dn Abd
al-Ram al-Irq and Zakariyy al-Anr, al-Tabira wal-tadhkira wa yalhi Fat al-Bq
al Alyyat al-Irq, ed. Muammad al-usayn al-Irq al-usayn, 2 vols. in 3 (Beirut:
Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, [n.d.]), 1:280-1; Ibn ajar al-Asqaln, al-Nukat al kitb Ibn
al-al, ed. Masd Abd al-amd al-Sadaf and Muammad Fris (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub
al-Ilmiyya, 1414/1994), 361; Shams al-Dn Muammad b. Abd al-Ramn al-Sakhw,
Fat al-mughth bi-shar Alyyat al-adth, ed. Al usayn Al, 5 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat
al-Sunna, 1424/2003), 1:330-3; Al b. Muammad Ibn Arrq, Tanzh al-shara al-marfa
an al-akhbr al-shana al-mawa (Cairo: Maktabat al-Qhira, [1964]), 1:6-8; Muammad
b. Isml al-Amr al-ann, Taw al-afkr li-man Tanq al-anr, ed. al Muam-
mad Uwaya, 2 vols. in 1 (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1417/1997), 2:72-5; Murta
al-Zabd, Bulghat al-arb f muala thr al-abb, ed. Abd al-Fatt Ab Ghudda (Bei-
rut: Maktab al-Mabt al-Islmiyya, 1408/[1988]), 193; Shh Abd al-Azz al-Dihlaw,
Ejle-ye nfee (Karachi: Nr Moammad Krkhne, 1964/1383), 25; Muammad Abd
al-ayy al-Laknaw, afar al-amn bi-shar Mukhtaar al-sayyid al-sharf al-Jurjn, ed.
Abd al-Fatt Ab Ghudda, 3rd ed. (Beirut: Maktab al-Mabt al-Islmiyya, 1416/
[1996]), 429-31; Muammad Mamd al-Turmus, Manhaj dhaw al-naar (Cairo:
Mabaat Muaf al-Bb al-alab, 1406/1985), 108-9; ub li, Ulm al-adth wa
mualaihi (Dr al-Ilm lil-Malyn, 2000), 264 .; Amad b. al-iddq al-Ghumr,
al-Mughr al al-adth al-mawa f al-Jmi al-aghr (Beirut: Dr al-Rid al-Arab,
1402/1982), 136-9; Muammad Idrs al-Kndhlaw, Minat al-mughth shar Alyyat
al-Irq fl-adth, ed. Sjid Abd al-Ramn al-iddq (Beirut: Dr al-Bashir al-Islmiyya,
1430/2009), 323; Nr al-Dn Itr, Manhaj al-naqd f ulm al-adth, 28th ed. (Beirut: Dr
al-Fikr al-Musir, 1428/2007), 312-17; Mohammad Hashim Kamali, A Textbook of adth
Studies (Markeld, U.K.: e Islamic Foundation, 2005), 194-7. An example of a Salaf
scholar who drew heavily on Ibn al-Qayyims list is Jaml al-Dn al-Qsim, Qawid
al-tadth, ed. Muammad Bahjat al-Bayr (Beirut: Dr al-Nafis, 1427/2006), 157-8.
23)
Al-Suy, Inbh al-adhkiy f ayt al-anbiy alayhim al-salm, in Rasil lil-imm
al- Jall al-Dn al-Suy, ed. Rshid al-Khall (Beirut: al-Maktaba al-Ariyya, 1431/
2009), 137.
out unreliable adths to that of a moneychanger intuitively knowing

a counterfeit coin. Such intangible expertise comes from long hours
of study (l al-mujlasa), discussion, and experience, explained the
critic Ibn Ad (d. 365/975-6).24 In his writings on adth methodology
in the seventh/thirteenth century, the Egyptian Ibn Daqq al-d (d.
702/1302) introduces the notion of an experiential faculty (haya naf-
sniyya aw malaka)a nosethat one acquires through long exposure
to Prophetic adths and that allows one to know what can and what
cannot be the Prophets speech, based on both form and content.25 This
theme has also been echoed by subsequent generations of scholars.26
Interestingly, this notion of an experiential faculty developed most
comprehensively in the twentieth century. The Salaf scholar of Damas-
cus, Jaml al-Dn al-Qsim, links this intuitive taste for true Prophetic
speech to a scholars highly developed piety.27 He builds this partially
on Ibn Taymiyyas (d. 728/1328) argument that, in the absence of
strong legal evidence, the moral intuition of a scholar whose heart is
edified by the fear of God (taqw) can be accepted as proof in deter-
mining the legal status of an action.28 Al-Qsim also cites at length the
writings of Ibn Urwa al-anbal (d. 837/1433-4) and the early Sufi
Shh al-Kirmn (d. ca. 300/900), who argued that pious and god-
fearing believers possess an intuitive ability to discern truth from false-
hood, authentic adths from spurious ones, citing as evidence adths
such as, Beware the perspicacity of the believer, for he sees with the
light of God (ittaq firsat al-mumin fa-innahu yanuru bi-nr Allh).
Shh al-Kirmn even recounts how he witnessed a pious Muslim reject
a adth as a forgery merely by hearing it. Later, al-Kirmn researched
the adth and found that the pious man was right.29
24)
Ibn Ad, al-Kmil, 1:118. is comparison is attributed to Abd al-Ramn b. Mahd.
Cf. al-Khab al-Baghdd, Kitb al-Jmi li-akhlq al-rw wa db al-smi, ed. Muammad
Rafat Sad, 2 vols. (Mansoura: Dr al-Waf, 1423/2002), 2:272.
25)
Ibn Daqq al-d, al-Iqtir f bayn al-iil, ed. mir asan abr (Beirut: Dr
al-Bashir al-Islmiyya, 1427/2006), 228.
26)
Ibn Arrq, Tanzh, 1:6; al-ann, Taw al-afkr, 2:72; al-Laknaw, afar al-amn,
429; al-Turmus, Manhaj, 107; al-Qsim, Qawid, 171-2.
27)
Al-Qsim, Qawid, 172 .
28)
See Taq al-Dn Amad Ibn Taymiyya, Majmat al-fatw, ed. Sayyid usayn al-An
and Khayr Sad, 35 vols. (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfqiyya, [n.d.]), 20:26.
29)
Al-Qsim, Qawid, 172-4. Al-Qsim cites from Ab al-asan Al b. usayn Ibn
This intuitive sense was further elaborated by the Moroccan adth

scholar and paragon of neo-Sufism, Amad b. al-iddq al-Ghumr.30
For him, the adth critics sensitivity to content or form unbecoming
the Prophet is distinctly phrased in the Sufi idiom. In the conclusion
of his list of the forged adths that he determines al-Suy to have
erroneously included in his al-Jmi al-aghr, al-Ghumr describes how
forged adths are obvious immediately to master critics. These are the
virtuosos who have practiced until they have tasted the flavor of the
Prophetic utterances, and their heart and mystery has mixed with his
flesh and blood so that his soul accepts authentic adths and the Pro-
phetic word, inclining to it upon merely hearing it, and conversely
with forgeries. This is only possible for those whose souls are blended
with the Sunna, with the light of the heart and purity of mind (af
al-dhihn). Al-Ghumr extends this ability to those elite Sufis who are
the gnostics, those possessed of sound unveiling (ahl al-kashf al-a)
and piercing perception by the light of God.31
e Converse: Sunni Rejection of Content Criticism in eory

and Practice
Al-Khab al-Baghdd represents well the paradox of content criticism
in Sunni adth scholarship. Although he provided the basis for all later
rules of content criticism, at no point in his many works on adth
criticism (such as the Kifya or the Jmi li-akhlq al-rw wa db
al-smi) does he ever actually employ it explicitly. In the case of the
dozens of adths that he criticizes as forged (maw) or unacceptable
(munkar) in his Trkh Baghdd, not once does the author cite the
contents of a adth as the reason for his verdict.32 He may indeed have
Urwas (a.k.a. Ibn Zaknn) unpublished al-Kawkib al-darr f tartb Musnad al-imm
Amad al abwb al-Bukhr.
30)
For debates over the concept of reformist, Neo-Susm, see R.S. OFahey and Bernd
Radtke, Neo-Susm Reconsidered, Der Islam 1 (1993): 52-87; John Voll, Neo-Susm:
Reconsidered Again, Canadian Journal of African Studies, 42, no. 2-3 (2007): 314-30,
560-97; John Voll and Nehemiah Levztion, eds., Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform
in Islam (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1987).
31)
Al-Ghumr, al-Mughr, 137.
32)
Brown, How We Know Early adth Critics, 153.
found the contents of many of these adths reprehensible, but phras-

ing his rejections in the language of isnd criticism and not content
criticism was the established Sunni way. As I discussed in an earlier
article, the methodological vision of the early Sunnis was built on the
cult of the isnd and on the subordination of reason to transmission
criticism. As the Sunni Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889) asserted in his rebut-
tal of the Mutazils:
We do not resort except to that to which the Messenger of God () resorted.

And we do not reject what has been transmitted authentically from him
because it does not accord with our conjectures (awhmin) or seem correct
to reason we hope that in this lies the path to salvation and escape from
the baseless whims of heresy (ahw).33 (my emphasis)
The contents of a adth might be problematic, but, for the early Sun-
nis, deeming it a forgery had to be couched in terms of flaws in trans-
mission. Ibn Qutayba points out the dangers that the early Sunnis saw
in open and unrestricted content criticism. Consider, for example,
Mutazil criticisms of the infamous adth of the Fly, which states that,
if a fly lands in ones drink, one should submerge it fully and then
remove it, since if there is disease on one wing the cure is on the other.34
Ibn Qutaybas rationalist opponents deemed it absurd that the same fly
could carry both a disease and its cure. Ibn Qutayba counters that a
Muslim who refuses to follow adths because of rational objections
and accepts religious texts based solely on the suitability of their con-
tents is rejecting what the Prophet and the Companions left us.35
Listing a set of rules for unacceptable contents was thus very un-
Sunni. It is no surprise that this list was imported from Mutazilism by
Ashars like al-Khab as part of the Ashar epistemological compro-
mise.36 In the centuries after al-Khab, leading Sunni adth scholars
mirrored his paradoxical approach to content criticism. The prolific
33)
Ab Muammad Abdallh Ibn Qutayba al-Dnawar, Tawl mukhtalif al-adth, ed.
Muammad Zuhr al-Najjr (Beirut: Dr al-Jl, 1393/1973), 208.
34)
is adth reads: idh waqaa dhubb f in aadikum fal-yaghmishu kullahu thumma
l-yarahu fa-inna f aad jinayhi shifan wa f al-khar dan. See a al-Bukhr: kitb
al-ibb, bb idh waqaa al-dhubb f al-in.
35)
Ibn Qutayba, Tawl mukhtalif al-adth, 228-9.
36)
Brown, How We Know Early adth Critics, 151-2.
and encyclopedic Egyptian scholar Jall al-Dn al-Suy upheld the list
of content criteria originated by al-Khab in his work on adth meth-
odology.37 In a treatise attempting to prove that the Prophets parents
had attained salvation despite having died before the call of Islam,
however, al-Suy finds himself roundly rejecting the principle of con-
tent criticism. One piece of evidence marshaled by al-Suy in his
salvation argument is a adth stating that the Prophets mother was
actually brought back to life briefly in order to embrace his message. A
whole cadre of Sunni scholars, however, had objected to this adth on
the grounds that its meaning was untenable. The Andalusian peripatetic
adth scholar Ibn Diya (d. 633/1235) lambastes the adth for break-
ing with the consensus that the Prophets mother had never been revived
and for contradicting numerous Qurnic verses. These include the
Qurnic injunction, Do not ask about the people of Hellfire (wa l
tasal an ab al-jam), which, according to Ibn Diya, was revealed
to the Prophet after he had exclaimed that he hoped his parents had
found bliss in the afterlife, and verses stating that those who disbelieve
can find no comfort in their good deeds on the Day of Resurrection.
Finally, Ibn Diya argues, it is absurd to think that someone can be
credited for believing in the message of Islam if he has been revived
from the dead to do so! This is analogous to the Qurns common-sense
statement that unbelievers regrets on the Day of Judgment will avail
them nothing.38
Al-Suy responds with a scathing attack on Ibn Diyas methodol-
ogy: Ibn Diyas finding fault (tall) in the adth for contradicting
the evident meaning of the Qurn does not accord with the method
of the scholars of adth. He quotes the fifth/eleventh-century adth
scholar Ab al-Fal al-Maqdiss (d. 507/1113) rebuke of Ibn azm (d.
456/1064) for his criticism of a adth found in a al-Bukhr 39 on
the grounds that it contradicted several accepted adths:
37)
Al-Suy, Tadrb al-rw, 213.
38)
Al-Suy, al-Tam wal-minna f anna abaway Rasl Allh () f al-janna, in Silsilat
mabt Dirat al-Marif al-Uthmniyya 50 (1915-6): 7-8. For a modern discussion of
how ones belief in God and Islam must be made freely and before the coming of Gods
manifest judgment, see Ysuf al-Qaraw, al-urriyya al-dniyya wal-taaddudiyya f naar
al-Islm (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islm, 1428/2007), 22.
39)
is adth is narrated by Shark b. Abdallh and describes the Prophets night journey
to Jerusalem as occurring before his revelation (qabla an y ilayhi). is, of course,
Indeed Ibn azm, although he was a master in diverse sciences, did not
follow the method of the adth masters in his criticism of that adth. And
that is because the adth masters criticize a adth by means of its isnd,
which is the means of approaching it (mirqt ilayhi), while that man [Ibn
azm] criticized it for its text (laf).40
Tension between Subjective Reason and Submission to Claims of

Revelation within the adth Corpus
The tension between submission to the omniscience of divine revelation
and contesting such attributions on grounds of natural reason is found
in foundational texts of the Sunni adth corpus itself. Later Muslim
scholars invoked these reports to argue for or against admitting specific
adths as evidence in their arguments. We will not consider here
whether these competing reports can be traced back to the time of the
Prophet. Instead will we only take into consideration their use in the
period after the mainstay adth collections in which they first appear.
These reports and the manner in which scholars used them demonstrate
that the inherent tension and subjectivity of content criticism was
embedded in Sunni scholarly discourse from its earliest days.
Consider the following two reports. The first is a well-known Pro-
phetic adth that we will refer to as the adth of Cringing. Dating
from at least the early third/ninth century (respected Sunni scholars
considered it reliable), it is narrated by the Successor Abd al-Malik b.
Sad from Ab amd and Ab Usayd and states that the Prophet said:
would seem to contradict blatantly the consensus that the Isr and Mirj occurred during
the Prophets preaching in Mecca. For Ibn azms criticism, see Al b. Muammad Ibn
azm, [Two adths from the aaynOne from al-Bukhr and One from Muslim
that Ibn azm Considers Forgeries], MS Ahmet III 624, Topkap Saray Library, Istanbul:
29a. Ibn ajar rejects this criticism. He suggests numerous interpretations for the adth,
including the notion that before the revelation meant before a particular instance of
revelation. In other words, the Prophet was transported on the Isr without being warned
by the means of revelation. See Ibn ajar, Fat al-br shar a al-Bukhr, ed. Abd
al-Azz b. Abdallh b. Bz and Muammad Fud Abd al-Bq, 16 vols. (Beirut: Dr
al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1418/1997), 13:591-3; a al-Bukhr: kitb al-tawd, bb m
ja f qawlihi azza wa jalla wa kallama Allhu Ms taklman.
40)
Al-Suy, al-Tam wal-manna, 9.
If you hear a adth that your heart accepts, that your mind and body are at
ease with, and you feel that it is acceptable to you, then it is even more
acceptable to me. If you hear a adth that makes your skin cringe, and your
hearts or minds turn against it, and you feel that it is inconceivable (bad)
to you, then it is even more inconceivable to me.41
41)
Idh samitum al-adth tarifuhu qulbukum wa talnu lahu ashrukum wa abshrukum
wa tarawn annahu minkum qarb fa-an awlkum bihi wa idh samitum al-adth taqshairru
minhu juldukum wa tataghayyaru lahu qulbukum aw ashrukum wa tarawn annahu bad
fa-an abadukum minhu. For this adth, see Ibn Sad, Kitb al-abaqt al-kabr, 1:333;
Ibn anbal (d. 241/855), Musnad Ibn anbal (Maymaniyya edition): 3:497, 5:425;
Muammad b. Isml al-Bukhr, al-Trkh al-kabr, ed. Muaf Abd al-Qdir A, 9
vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1422/2001), 5:259; Ab Bakr al-Bazzr (d. 292/
904-5), Musnad al-Bazzr, ed. Maf al-Ramn al-Salaf, 10 vols. (Beirut, Medina:
Muassasat Ulm al-Qurn, 1409/1989), 9:168; Ab Jafar al-aw, Shar Mushkil
al-thr, ed. Shuayb al-Arn (Beirut: Muassasat al-Risla, 1415/1994), 15:344; Ibn
ibbn al-Bust, al-Isn bi-tartb a Ibn ibbn, ed. Kaml Ysuf al-t, 10 vols.
(Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1407/1987), 1:140-1; al-Khab al-Baghdd, al-Kifya
f marifat ul ilm al-riwya, 2:551; Abd al-aqq Ibn al-Kharr al-Ishbl, Kitb al-Akm
al-shariyya al-kubr, ed. usayn Uksha, 5 vols. (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, 1422/2001),
1:297-8; Ibn al-Jawz, Kitb al-Mawt, 1:103; Badr al-Dn Muammad b. Bahdur
al-Zarkash, al-Nukat al Muqaddimat Ibn al-al, ed. Zayn al-bidn Bil Furayj, 4
vols. (Riyadh: Aw al-Salaf, 1998), 2:262; Amad b. Sad al-Dn al-Miswar, al-Risla
al-munqidha min al-ghiwya f uruq al-riwya, ed. amd al-Anm (Sanaa: Maktabat
Badr, 1997), 64; al-Ghumr, al-Mughr, 137. Ibn Kathr, al-Fatan, al-Suy and
al-Shawkn say this adth is a; al-Albn says it is asan; Ibn Kathr, Tafsr Ibn Kathr
(Beirut: Dr al-Mufd, [n.d.]), 2:458; al-Suy, al-Jmi al-aghr, 2nd ed. (Beirut: Dr
al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1425/2004), 49 (#699), Muammad hir al-Fatan (d. 986/1578-
9), Tadhkirat al-mawt ([Damascus]: Amn Damaj, [n.d.]), 28; Muammad b. Al
al-Shawkn, al-Fawid al-majma f al-adth al-mawa, ed. Abd al-Ramn
al-Muallim and Zuhayr Shwsh (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islm, 1392/[1972]), 281;
Muammad Nir al-Dn al-Albn, a al-Jmi al-aghr, ed. Zuhayr Shwsh, 3rd ed.
(Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islm, 1408/1988), 1:166. Cf. Ibn azm, al-Ikm f ul al-akm,
ed. Muammad Amad Abd al-Azz, 8 vols. in 2 (Cairo: Mabaat al-Imtiyz, 1398/1978),
2:250; cf. Shams al-Dn al-Dhahab, Mzn al-itidl f naqd al-rijl, ed. Al Muammad
al-Bijw, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Marifa, [n.d.], reprint of 1963-4 Cairo s al-Bb
al-alab edition), 1:271; Amad al-Ghumr, al-Mudw li-ilal al-Jmi al-aghr wa
Sharay al-Munw, 6 vols. (Cairo: Dr al-Kutub, 1996), 1:398-400. Similar adths have
been rejected by Sunni critics: man addatha ann adthan huwa li-llh rian fa-an qultuhu
wa bihi ursiltu; see Ibn al-Jawz, Kitb al-Mawt, 1:98; idh balaghakum ann adth
yasunu b an aqlahu fa-an qultuhu, wa idh balaghakum ann adth l yasunu b an
aqlahu fa-laysa minn wa lam aqulhu; see Ibn Ab tim al-Rz, Ilal al-adth, 2 vols.
(Beirut: Dr al-Marifa, 1405/1985), 2:310 (#2445); al-Dhahab, Mzn, 1:308.
The second report is a Companion statement that appears in main-

stream Sunni sources from the third/ninth century onward. It is attrib-
uted to both Al b. Ab lib and Ibn Masd and states, If you are
told a adth from the Prophet, think of it what is most fitting, most
pious and best guided.42 We will refer to this as the Command to
Charity.
These two reports appear to be at loggerheads. The adth of Cring-
ing clearly instructs Muslims to evaluate claims about the Prophet mak-
ing a statement on the basis of their own subjective understanding of
right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate. The Command to
Charity, however, tells Muslims to subordinate their natural reaction
and moral judgment to an assumption of charityif one understands
a report attributed to the Prophet negatively, then one must find a bet-
ter and alternative interpretation more befitting Islamic teachings. One
might assume that the Command to Charity addresses how Muslims
should interpret adths that have already been authenticated, and this
is certainly how one of the scholars discussed below understood it. But,
as we will also see below, this is explicitly not the case for most scholars
examined.
Sunni scholars affirmed the evident meanings and messages of these
two edicts. The early anaf jurist of Egypt Ab Jafar al-aw (d.
321/932) ruminates on the adth of Cringing and concludes that it
confirms that the Prophets teachings, like Gods words in the Qurn,
accord with mans natural perception of right and wrong.43 In the intro-
ductory chapters of his dictionary of impugned transmitters, the Kmil
f uaf al-rijl, the Shfi adth scholar Ibn Ad cites a version of
the Cringing adth as the basis for his chapter on Fearing the adths
42)
Idh uddithtum bi-adth min al-Nab fa-ann bihi m huwa ahya wa m huwa atq
wa m huwa ahd. For this report, see Musnad Ibn anbal: 1:122, 130, 385, 415; Sunan
Ibn Mjah: introductory chapters, bb 2 tam adth rasl Allh () wal-taghl al man
raahu; Ab Yal al-Mawil, Musnad Ab Yal al-Mawil, ed. usayn Salm Asad, 16
vols. (Damascus: Dr al-Mamn, 1407/1987), 9:170; Ab Nuaym al-Ibahn, ilyat
al-awliy, 10 vols. (Beirut and Cairo: Dr al-Fikr and Maktabat al-Khnj, 1416/1996),
7:247; Khwje Abdallh al-Anr al-Haraw, Dhamm al-kalm wa ahlihi, ed. Abd
al-Ramn al-Shibl, 5 vols. (Medina: Maktabat al-Ulm wal-ikam, 1418/1998), 2:76-
7; Ab Abdallh Muammad Ibn Mui al-Maqdis, al-db al-shariyya, ed. Shuayb
al-Arn et al., 3 vols. (Beirut: Muassasat al-Risla, 1996), 2:295.
43)
Al-aw, Shar Mushkil al-thr, 15:346; cf. Qurn 39:23.
of the Messenger of God () except what is known, understood and of

which one is certain.44 Ibn Kathr invokes the Cringing adth in his
Tafsr, using it as evidence that the Prophet only ordered what was right
and shunned what was wrong.45 This adth inspired a maxim coined
by Ibn al-Jawz in his Kitb al-Mawt and parroted by generations
of Sunni scholars into the twentieth century: Unacceptable adths,
the students skin cringes at them, and his heart is averse to them in
general.46
Interestingly, none of these scholars saw in the adth of Cringing
any risk of making reason or moral sensibility paramount over revealed
texts. They did not overtly connect the adth to the danger that Sunni
Muslims had been trumpeting since the birth of the movement, namely
that it was precisely an overconfidence in mans frail reason to decide
matters of religion and religious law that had led countless communities
astray in the past.
Not surprisingly, the reliance on subjective reason inherent in the
adth of Cringing was a double-edged sword. In the enduring debate
over the acceptability of music in Islam, we see the Cringing adth
brought into direct competition with the transmission-based system of
authentication that Sunnis hoped would remove reason from the pro-
cess of adth criticism.47 The Alexandrian scholar Amad Ibn al-Muza-
yyan al-Qurub (d. 656/1258) employs the Cringing adth to argue
for the inherent truthfulness of adths condemning music in the face
of serious criticisms of the isnd reliability of these reports. He admits
44)
Ibn Ad, al-Kmil, 1:26. Ibn Ad was actually a student of al-aw (see Ibn Ad,
al-Kmil, 1:53). See also Al b. Umar al-Draqun and Shams al-Dn al-Ambd, Talq
al-mughn al Sunan al-Draqun, 4 vols. in 2 (Multan, Pakistan): Nashr al-Sunna,
[1980]), 4:208. Interestingly, al-Khab narrates this adth from a vizier whom he respected
a great deal; see al-Khab al-Baghdd, Trkh Baghdd, ed. Muaf Abd al-Qdir A,
14 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1417/1997), 11:390.
45)
Ibn Kathr, Tafsr, 2:255, 458. ese discussions occur in the context of Qurn 7:107
and 11:88.
46)
Al-adth al-munkar yaqshairru minhu jild al-lib wa yanru minhu qalbuhu f
al-ghlib; Ibn al-Jawz, Kitb al-Mawt, 1:103; al-Sakhw, Fat al-mughth, 1:331;
al-Suy, Tadrb al-rw, 212; al-Laknaw, afar al-amn, 430; al-Qsim, Qawid
al-tadth, 172.
47)
For a useful article on this debate, see Arthur Gribetz, e Sam Controversy: Su vs.
Legalist, Studia Islamica 74 (1991): 43-62.
that adths condemning music, which appear in collections like

al-Tirmidhs Jmi, are routinely criticized by critics like al-Tirmidh
himself for both weak transmitters and a lack of corroboration.
Al-Qurub retorts, however, that these flawed adths are buttressed
by general Islamic legal principles (al-qawid al-shariyya), as the
adths accord with the values of the Shariah and instruct Muslims not
to engage in foolish and vain activities. He then cites the adth of
Cringing as evidence that Muslims know a sound adth when they
hear it. Al-Qurub quotes an earlier Andalusian scholar who also drew
on this adth to hammer home his argument: As Abd al-aqq [Ibn
al-Kharr al-Ishbl] (d. 581/1185) said, What these adths include
in terms of condemning singing and singers, the hearts of the scholars
accept it and their minds and bodies are at ease with it.48
In his commentary on al-Ghazls Iy ulm al-dn, Murta
al-Zabd (d. 1791 CE) dives into the debate, arguing against those who
prohibit music by pointing to the many isnd flaws of the anti-music
adths. The inevitable subjectivity of content criticism actually affords
al-Zabd an opening to rebut al-Qurubs argument. Turning the
adth of Cringing against his opponent, al-Zabd argues that the
extent to which music promotes softening of the heart, the souls long-
ing for those beloved people and places, benefit for the body and bring-
ing joy to the heart means that one could just as easily use ones moral
sense to reject adths banning music.49
All the Sunni scholars examined in this research have been uniform
in their interpretation of the Command to Charity, which they have
understood as embodying an important hermeneutic principle. The
famous Shfi scholar of Naysbr, Ibn Khuzayma (d. 311/923), who
acted as the pivot for the transmission and dispersion of al-Shfis
teachings in Khurasan, invokes this saying of Al in his vehemently
traditionist theological treatise the Kitb al-Tawd. The author notes
that this saying articulates an important rule that should govern schol-
ars interpretations of Prophetic reports: it is essential to read adths
48)
Amad b. Umar al-Anr al-Qurub, Kashf al-qin an ukm al-wajd wal-sam
(Tanta: Dr al-aba lil-Turth, 1412/1992), 37-40; Muammad Murta al-Zabd,
Itf al-sda al-mutaqqn bi-shar asrr Iy ulm al-dn, 10 vols. (Beirut: Dr Iy
al-Turth al-Arab, [1973?]), 6:523.
49)
Al-Zabd, Itf al-sda, 6:525.
in the proper light so that they accord with the entirety of the Sunna.
If a scholar proceeded otherwise, he might understand one adth as
contradicting or invalidating another. For example, Ibn Khuzayma
explains, a Prophetic report stating that a Muslim who commits a cer-
tain sin will not enter heaven should not be understood as an absolute
statement (since Sunni orthodoxy holds that all monotheists, and all
Muslims, will one day enter Heaven). Rather, it should be understood
as meaning that this person will not enter heaven as easily as someone
who has not committed that sin.50
Although he adhered to the rival anaf school of law and legal
theory, Ibn Khuzaymas contemporary in Naysbr, Ab Bakr al-Ja
(d. 370/981), also invoked the Command to Charity. In a discussion
of adths stating that children born of fornication cannot enter Heaven,
he emphasizes that, if deemed authentic, such adths should not be
interpreted literally.51 In this case they would contradict the Qurnic
principle that No bearer of burdens can bear the burdens of another
(l taziru wzira wizra ukhr) (Qurn 6:164). Instead, these adths
must have been addressed at specific individuals only. All this proves,
concludes al-Ja, that the ruling of a report that seems to contradict
the ruling of the Qurn or established Sunna (al-sunna al-thbita)
should be interpreted in a correct way if possible and not used in a way
that contradicts those two sources.52
Are Muslims supposed to reject adths that seem unacceptable or
unbefitting the teachings of the Prophet? Or should they reinterpret
50)
Ibn Khuzayma, Kitb al-Tawd wa ithbt ift al-rabb azza wa jalla, ed. Abd al-Azz
Ibrhm al-Shahwn, 2 vols. (Riyadh: Dr al-Rushd, 1408/1988), 2:877-8. Ibn Qayyim
al-Jawziyya summarizes this meaning succinctly. He notes how important it is that the
intended meaning of the Messenger () be understood without exaggeration (ghuluww) or
understatement (taqr). erefore, his speech is not to be interpreted in a way that it does
not allow or makes it fall short of its intended meaning and what guidance and elucidation
Muammad intended.; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Kitb al-R, ed. rif al-jj (Beirut:
Dr Iy al-Ulm, 1408/1988), 121-2.
51)
Such adths include Ab Hurayras narration walad al-zin sharr al-thaltha and Ibn
Umars l yadkhulu al-janna walad al-zin. See Sunan Ab Dwd: kitb al-itq, bb f itq
walad al-zin; Ab Nuaym al-Ibahn, ilyat al-awliy wa abaqt al-ay, 11 vols.
(Beirut, Cairo: Dr al-Fikr and Maktabat al-Khnj, 1416/1996), 3:308.
52)
Ab Bakr Amad al-Ja, Ul al-Ja, ed. Muammad Muammad Tmir, 2 vols.
(Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1420/2000), 1:107-9.
such problematic reports in a favorable and pietistic light? Although

no Muslim scholar that I know of has addressed the dichotomous ten-
sion between the adth of Cringing and the Command to Charity,
several have dealt with it implicitly by using the two maxims to check
one another.
Our earliest attestation for the Command to Charity comes from
the Sunan of Abdallh b. Abd al-Ramn al-Drim (d. 255/869), a
major ahl al-adth scholar of the Khurasan region. In the introductory
chapters of his Sunan, which constitute a veritable manifesto of ahl
al-adth methodology, one subchapter deals with Interpreting the
Reports of the Messenger of God (tawl adth rasl Allh). Two of
the four reports in this subchapter consist of the Command to Charity,
the first attributed to Ibn Masd and the second to Al. Interestingly,
the third report features Ibn Abbs warning his audience, presumably
his students, If you hear me narrate something from the Messenger of
God () but do not find it in the Book of God or accepted among the
people (asanan ind al-ns), then know that I have ascribed something
falsely to him (kadhabtu alayhi).53 Although not the adth of Cring-
ing per se, Ibn Abbs words convey the same message: if the meaning
of the putative adth does not seem correct to your sensibilities as
Muslims, the narrator must be incorrectly representing the Prophet.
Reading al-Drims chapter, one comes away with a dynamic tension
rather than a clear rule: interpret a adth attributed to the Prophet
in the most charitable way possible, but if it contradicts how the
Muslim community understands Islam then it must not really be from
Muammad. How exactly the Muslim community understands Islam
is, of course, a matter of considerable debate.
The adth of Cringing and the Command to Charity appear
together on later occasions as well. Immediately after invoking the
adth of Cringing in his Tafsr to underscore the unfailing righteous-
ness of the Prophets guidance, Ibn Kathr brings to bear Als Com-
mand to Charity without any intervening comment or explanation.
I can only interpret this as Ibn Kathrs cautioning the reader that the
consistent truth of Muammads words means that we must be humble
before judging them. Ibn al-Mufli (d. 763/1362), like Ibn Kathr a
53)
Sunan al-Drim: introductory chapters, bb 50 (tawl adth rasl Allh).
student of Ibn Taymiyya, sees the adth of Cringing and the Com-
mand to Charity as successive steps, not principles in tension. After
listing a number of variations of the adth of Cringing, he adds,
Whatever [Prophetic] reports have proven reliable (aa) must be
interpreted in the best and most fitting way (al asan al-wujh wa
awlh) (my emphasis). He then he cites Als Command to Charity.54
Two Extremes on Content Criticism: Shams al-Dn al-Dhahab

and Mull Al al-Qri
The inevitable subjectivity of content criticism surfaces in the manner
in which different scholars approached adth criticism. Some adth
critics were consistently more likely to reject adths based on content,
while others steered sharply away from content criticism in favor of
charitable interpretation. We have already seen Ibn azm singling out
a adth from the revered a of al-Bukhr for content criticism,
while the great Iraqi adth scholar al-Draqun (d. 385/995) criticized
217 adths in al-Bukhrs and Muslims collections for isnd reasons
without ever mentioning an objection to content.55 Two noted scholars
afford a useful comparison in attitude towards content criticism: the
Damascene adth scholar Shams al-Dn al-Dhahab (d. 748/1348) and
the resident anaf master of Mecca, Mull Al al-Qri (d. 1014/
1606). The first was a Shfi with strong Salaf leanings who produced
definitive biographical dictionaries and adth works, the second was
a staunch anaf and Ashar56 known for his encyclopedic commentar-
ies on numerous mainstay adth texts.
Al-Dhahab engages in content criticism with remarkable frequency
in his Mzn al-itidl f naqd al-rijl, a compendium of impugned
adth transmitters. His criticism of individual adths comes as he lists
reports that he feels indict a problematic adth narrator or forger.
54)
Ibn Mui, al-db al-shariyya, 2:287-95.
55)
See Jonathan Brown, Criticism of the Proto-adth Canon: al-Draquns Adjustment
of the aayn, Journal of Islamic Studies 15, no. 1 (2004): 1-37.
56)
I do not know if we have a record of Mull Al explicitly professing Asharism, but his
theological positions are in line with those of the school. He also notes the position of the
Ashars and arms them. See Mull Al al-Qri, Shar al-Fiqh al-akbar, ed. Marwn
Muammad al-Shar (Beirut: Dr al-Nafis, 1417/1997); 63, 114-15.
Al-Dhahab rejects some adths based on their illogical or unreasonable

content. For example, he criticizes a adth in which the Prophet is
quoted as saying that guarding the coast for one night is better than
the good deeds of 1,000 years, each day of which was the equivalent of
1,000 normal years. Al-Dhahab objects to this report because it would
lead to an outrageously large reward in the Afterlife. Based on his rough
calculation, this act would be the equivalent of doing good deeds con-
stantly for 360,000,000 days.57 Evaluating a adth describing how
the Byzantine emperor supposedly sent the Prophet a gift of ginger
(zanjabl), al-Dhahab objects that this was implausible for two reasons.
First, there is no record of the Byzantine emperor sending the Prophet
any presents and, second, it would be like sending coal to Newcastle:
A present of ginger from Anatolia to the Hijaz is something that reason
rejects, for it is similar to sending a gift of dates from Anatolia to
Medina.58
Al-Dhahab frequently jettisons adths due to anachronism. He
rejects a adth in which the Prophet recounts how Gabriel came to
me with a dish of fruit from Heaven, so I ate it. Then I slept with
Khadja and [she became pregnant with] Fima (jan Jibrl bi-
safrajalla min al-janna fa-akaltuh fa-wqatu Khadja fa-allaqat
bi-Fima). Al-Dhahab snarls, Even children have learned that
Gabriel did not descend on the Prophet until some time after the birth
of Fima.59 Al-Dhahab also criticizes a adth narrated by Ab Ms
al-Ashar on the Prophets teenage trips to Syria with his uncle Ab
lib. What shows that this [version] is false is the part that says, And
Ab lib sent him back, and Ab Bakr sent Bill with him, because
Bill had not even been born yet, and Ab Bakr was but a youth.60
Al-Dhahab also rejects a adth that [t]he Prophet set as places to
57)
Al-Dhahab, Mzn, 2:132 (bio of Sad b. Khlid). is adth of Sad appears in the
Sunan of Ibn Mjah: kitb al-jihd, bb fal al-ars wal-takbr f sabl Allh. For a similar
implicit objection to the rewards supposedly granted someone who writes Bismillh
al-Ramn al-Ram properly, see al-Dhahab, Mzn, 2:384.
58)
Al-Dhahab, Mzn, 3:254 (bio of Amr b. akkm).
59)
Ibid., 2:416 (bio of Abdallh b. Dwd al-Wsi al-Tammr). Al-Tammr narrates at
least three adths in al-Tirmidhs Jmi.
60)
Ibid., 2:581 (bio of Abd al-Ramn b. Ghazwn). is transmitter transmits one adth
in the Sunan of Ab Dwd, two in the Jmi of al-Tirmidh and one in the Sunan of
al-Nas.
enter the state of ritual pilgrimage for the people of Madin al-Aqq
and for the people of Basra Dht Irq (waqqata al-Nab [] li-ahl
al-Madin al-Aqq wa li-ahl al-Bara Dht Irq). This report must be
a forgery because Basra did not exist at the time of the Prophet, notes
al-Dhahab, rather it was established as a garrison city in the time of
Umar.61
A notion of physical impossibility also constituted part of al-Dhahabs
critical toolkit. He notes a adth recorded by Ibn Ad from Ibn Umar
in his Kmil, that the Prophet came out of his house one day and had
in his hand two books with the names of the People of Heaven and the
People of Hell [written in them], identifying each by their names, the
names of their fathers and their tribes (kharaja rasl Allh () dht
yawm).62 Al-Dhahab objects, That is a totally unacceptable adth
(munkar jiddan), and it would be enough to determine that the weight
of the two books would be tremendous.63
The above examples of content criticism occur within the context of
transmitter criticism in al-Dhahabs compendium of impugned trans-
mitters. As such, one might argue that al-Dhahab may have considered
uncovering flaws in the meaning of these adths only because he was
already convinced of the unreliability of those who transmitted them.
Certainly, the authors discussion of these problematic matns in his
Mzn is intended as an indictment of their transmitters. But not all
the adths transmitted by these narrators were considered unreliable.64
Five of the above six transmitters in whose biographies al-Dhahab notes
61)
Ibid., 4:313 (bio of Hill b. Zayd). is transmitter narrates a adth in the Sunan of
Ibn Mjah.
62)
A version of this adth from Abdallh b. Amr b. al- appears in Jmi al-Tirmidh:
kitb al-qadar, bb m ja anna Allh kataba kitban li-ahl al-janna.
63)
Al-Dhahab, Mzn, 2:684 (bio of Abd al-Wahhb b. Hammm al-ann [brother of
Abd al-Razzq]). Al-Dhahab says the weight would be a number of qanr, with each
qinr being roughly 143 kg. See Al Juma, al-Makyl wal-mawzn al-shariyya (Cairo:
Dr al-Risla, 1424/2002), 19.
64)
e observation of one of the last senior religious ocials of the Ottoman empire,
Muammad Zhid al-Kawthar (d. 1952), is instructive here: ere is no narrator [of
adths] except that he is praised by some and impugned by others, but instruction [on
this] should come only from the opinions of those trustworthy and devoted to the criticism
of transmitters; Muammad Zhid al-Kawthar, Maqlt al-Kawthar (Cairo: al-Maktaba
al-Azhariyya, 1414/1994), 138.
problems with content are narrators used in one or more of the ca-
nonical Six Books. Moreover, two of the adths mentioned above by
al-Dhahab are themselves included in those canonical works.
Al-Dhahab thus chose to include his criticisms of the above adths
first and foremost because their meanings struck him as objectionable.
Furthermore, al-Dhahab engages in content criticism in adths
whose isnds he admits have no weaknesses. He remarks that a adth
in which the Prophet is described as saying the basmala out loud in
prayer was forged even though its isnd is like the sun.65 Here,
al-Dhahabs reader would recognize the great controversy to which he
refers: the Shfi schools stubborn insistence on reciting the basmala
aloud in prayer despite the strong adths stating that the Prophet never
did this as well as the clear falsity of adths supporting the Shfi
position.66 Al-Dhahab also states that another adth perennially crit-
icized for its flawed meaning, in which the newly converted Ab Sufyn
asks the Prophet to marry his daughter Umm abba, was an unac-
ceptable tradition (al munkar) even though this adth appeared in
the revered a of Muslim (as other critics had pointed out, the
Prophet had married Umm abba earlier, upon her return from
Ethiopia).67 Although not a Prophetic adth, al-Dhahab reacts with
similar disbelief to a report of Ibn anbal grudgingly acknowledging
the truth of Sufism as practiced by his rival al-rith al-Musib: This
story has an authentic isnd but is unacceptable (munkara). It does not
sit easily with my heart (l taqau al qalb), and I considered it highly
unlikely that this would take place with someone like Amad.68
65)
Al-Dhahab, Mzn, 1:480; see also ibid., 2:612-3.
66)
Al-Dhahab notes that al-Khab al-Baghdd included this adth in his treatise written
in support of the the Sh position on the basmala. Previously, Ibn al-Jawz had lambasted
al-Khab for this work (his Kitb al-Jahr bil-basmala), which used unreliable adths to
argue the Sh position. See Ibn al-Jawz, al-Muntaam f trkh al-umam wal-mulk, ed.
Muammad Abd al-Qdir A and Muaf Abd al-Qdir A (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub
al-Ilmiyya, 1412/1992), 16:133. For more on the debate over the authenticity of the
basmala adths, see Jonathan Brown, e Canonization of al-Bukhr and Muslim (Leiden:
Brill, 2007), 257-8.
67)
Al-Dhahab, Mzn, 3:93. For more on criticisms of this adth, see Brown, Canoniza-
tion, 304.
68)
Al-Dhahab, Mzn, 1:430 (bio of al-rith al-Musib).
Mull Al al-Qri, however, represents the opposite extreme of the

content-criticism spectrum. In his compilation of forged adths, the
Asrr al-marfa f al-adth al-mawa, Mull Al repeatedly instructs
the reader on the duty to submit rational objections to the authorita-
tiveness of the isnd. Addressing a controversial adth affirming that
anything someone says after he sneezes is true, Mull Al dismisses
critics like Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, who had declared the adth forged
in part due to its absurd meaning, by asserting: It is not hidden at all
that if something has been established by transmission [from the Pro-
phet], then one should not heed (l ibra) any contradiction with sense
perception or reason.69 Instead of questioning the reliability of a adth
on the grounds of reason, one should accept a viable isnd and rely on
charitable interpretation. Discussing the controversial adth narrated
by ammd b. Salama in which the Prophet tells how he saw God in
the image of a beardless youth (amrad), Mull Al rejects the opinion
of Tj al-Dn al-Subk (d. 771/1370) and others who declare it a clear
forgery, possibly of ignorant Sufis.70 There is no problem with the
adths meaning, explains Mull Al, since it describes something that
the Prophet saw in a dream. Dreams have no necessary link to reality
and are merely representational. He concludes:
For indeed if the [evaluation of the] adth is based on something in its isnd
that demonstrates its being a forgery, then we concede the point [that it is
forged]. But if not, then the realm of possible interpretation is denitely
wide (fa-bb al-tawl wsi muattam).71
Mull Al contests the conclusion of Ibn ajar and others that there
is no basis for the adth: The foolish rabble of Mecca are the filling
of Heaven (sufah Makka ashw al-janna). Again, Mull Al empha-
sizes the absolute priority of basing evaluations of adth on the strength
of their transmission, not their meaning. First things first (thabbit
69)
Mull Al al-Qri, al-Asrr al-marfa f al-akhbr al-mawa, ed. Muammad Luf
al-abbgh, 2nd ed. (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islm, 1406/1986), 407.
70)
Tj al-Dn al-Subk, abaqt al-shiyya al-kubr, ed. Abd al-Fatt Muammad
al-alw and Mamd Muammad al-an, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Hujr, 1413/1992), 2:312.
71)
Mull Al, al-Asrr, 210.
al-arsh thumma unqush),72 he instructs, for the issue centers first on

the authenticity of the attribution (mabn). Then it branches out to
the correctness of the meaning. Mull Al then advances several pos-
sible interpretations of the adth, such as reading it as a testimony to
the standing of the Kaba and Mecca in Gods eyes.73
Mull Al even reprimands al-Dhahab for his facility with content
criticism. Al-Dhahab had claimed that the adth The lord of the
Arabs is Al (sayyid al-arab Al) was falsely attributed to the Prophet.
Mull Al comments, Perhaps he was looking at the meaning, although
[the adth] is established with certainty with regards to the authentic-
ity of the attribution (maa qa al-naar il iat al-mabn).74
The perennial inconsistency of scholars approach to content criti-
cism, however, plagues Mull Al himself. He relies on content criticism
in his condemnation of the following adth: Strangers [or Sufis] are
the heirs of the prophets, for God did not send a prophet except that
he was a stranger amongst his people (al-ghurab warathat al-anbiy
wa lam yabath Allh nabiyyan ill wa huwa gharb f qawmihi). Mull
Al judges that this adth cannot come from the Prophet (i.e., it is
bil) because the Qurn says that Noah, Hud, and li were all sent
by God to their own peoples.75
e Subjectivity of Content Criticism on Specic adths in

Pre-Modern Islam
The inherent subjectivity of content criticism and the tension between
critical and charitable readings are clear in the drastically different ways
72)
is loose translation of the phrase certainly draws on the license of functional
equivalence. e original could be translated as stabilize the chair rmly before engraving
it. Dekhod gives another example of this phrase drawn from Rms Masnav: Goft q
thabbet al-arsh ay pedart bar w naqsh kon az khayr sharr; Al Akbar Dekhod,
Amthl ekam, 7th ed., 4 vols. (Tehran: Chpkhne-ye Sepehr, 1370/[1992]), 2:573.
73)
Mull Al, al-Asrr, 221. For Ibn ajars verdict (that it is not a adth), see his protg
Shams al-Dn al-Sakhw, al-Maqid al-asana, ed. Muammad Uthmn al-Khisht
(Beirut: Dr al-Kitb al-Arab, 1425/2004), 249.
74)
Mull Al, al-Asrr, 224; cf. al-Dhahab, Mzn, 3:185 (bio of Umar b. al-asan
al-Rsib).
75)
Mull Al, al-Asrr, 250.
in which adth critics reacted to the same reports. An example comes

from our earliest surviving compilation of forged adths, the Tadhki-
rat al-mawt of Ab al-Fal Muammad b. hir al-Maqdis (d.
507/1113). This book lists 1,119 adths that the author deems forger-
ies, and in the case of all but one adth the author declares his subject
matter forgeries based on some problematic transmitter in the isnd.
Only once does al-Maqdis base his ruling on content criticism. This
is the report in which the Prophet says: The parable of my community
is that of the rain. It is not known which is better, its beginning or its
end (mathalu ummat mathal al-maar l yudr awwaluhu khayr aw
khiruhu). Although al-Maqdis presents the technical proof for this
adth being a forgery as the presence of the problematic transmitter
Hishm b. Ubaydallh al-Rz in the isnd, he adds a sharp criticism
about its contents: It has been transmitted authentically that [the
Prophet] said, The best generation is my generation, then the one that
follows me (khayr al-qurn qarn thumma alladh yalnahum).76
Indeed, unlike the plethora of other adths describing the historical
entropy of Muslim society as it deteriorates from the time of the
Prophet, the Parable of the Rain adth suggests that later generations
of Muslims will perhaps be more righteous than earlier ones.
This adth, however, has been widely considered to be perfectly
reliable and without any objectionable content. Ibn ibbn (d. 354/
965) included it in his a, al-Tirmidh included it in his Jmi, and
Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 463/1070) and al-Suy considered it asan.77
76)
Ab al-Fal Muammad b. hir al-Maqdis, Tadhkirat al-mawt, ed. Muammad
Muaf al-adar al-ab (Mecca: al-Maktabat al-Salayya, 1401/1981), 106.
Al-Maqdiss ostensible isnd criticism for this adth does not sustain his objection to the
adths contents. Hishm is found only in a fraction of the narrations of this adth,
occurring in al-Khab al-Baghdds and Ab Yal al-Mawils versions. For the adth,
see Musnad Ibn anbal: 3:130, 143; 4:319; al-Bazzr, Musnad al-Bazzr, 4:244; 9:23; Ab
Yal al-Mawil, Musnad Ab Yal, 6:380; Ab Nuaym al-Ibahn, ilyat al-awliy,
2:231; al-Khab al-Baghdd, Trkh Baghdd, 11:115.
77)
Jmi al-Tirmidh: kitab al-adab, 81; kitb al-amthl, bb mathal al-alawt al-khams in
some editions; Ibn ibbn, al-Isn bi-tartb a Ibn ibbn, 9:176; Ibn Abd al-Barr,
al-Tamhd li-m f al-Muwaa min al-man wal-asnd, ed. Muaf b. Amad al-Alaw
and Muammad Abd al-Kabr al-Bakr, 2nd ed. 26 vols. ([Rabat]: Wizrat Umm al-Awqf
wal-Shun al-Islmiyya, 1402/1982, 1st ed. 1387/1967), 20:254; al-Suy, al-Jmi
al-aghr, 102 (#1620), 499 (#8161).
Indeed, it was precisely the non-entropic view of the ummas future

that endeared this adth to many Muslim scholars. In the introduction
to his biographical dictionary of famous Sufis, al-Sulam (d. 412/1021)
saw the Parable of the Rain adth as complementing perfectly reports
asserting that the greatest generation was that of the Companions. He
understood that, taken together, these two adths mean that neither
the early Muslims nor the later generations of the community would
be bereft of pious figures.78 Later biographical dictionaries, like the
Kawkib al-sira bi-ayn al-mia al-shira of Najm al-Dn al-Ghazz
(d. 1061/1651), cite the Parable of the Rain adth precisely for the
purpose of assuring the presence of worthy Muslims in later genera-
tions.79
The adth chosen by al-Ja as an example of a report with a
meaning ripe for problematic interpretation affords another excellent
example: The child born of adultery will not enter Heaven (l yadkhulu
al-janna walad al-zin). Ab al-Khayr Amad al-liqn (d. 590/
1194) recounts that in 576/1180 an energetic discussion about this
adth broke out among students at the Baghdad Nimiyya. One party
insisted that the adth was forged because it violated the Qurnic
principle that no bearer of burdens bears the burdens of another
(Quran 6:164), while al-liqn argued that, unlike other Muslims
who die as children, this child of adultery would not join its Muslim
parents in heaven because its paternity was uncertain.80 In his famous
Kitb al-Mawt, Ibn al-Jawz (d. 597/1201) asserts that none of the
narrations of this adth are authentic and reaffirms that it violates that
venerable Qurnic principle.81 Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn ajar al-Asqaln,
78)
Ab Abd al-Ramn al-Sulam, abaqt al-yya, ed. Nr al-Dn Sudayba, 3rd ed.
(Cairo: Maktabat al-Khnj, 1418/1997), 2. See also al-Qurub, al-Jmi li-akm
al-Qurn, ed. Muammad Ibrhm al-ifnw, 11 vols. (Cairo: Dr al-adth, 1423/2002),
2:529 (in the context of Qurn 3:110).
79)
Najm al-Dn Muammad b. Muammad al-Ghazz, al-Kawkib al-sira bi-ayn al-mia
al-shira, ed. Jibrl Sulaymn Jabbr, 3 vols., 2nd ed. (Beirut: Dr al-fq al-adtha,
1979), 1:4. See also Ab al-Fal Muammad b. Khall al-Murd, Silk al-durar f ayn
al-qarn al-thn ashar, ed. Muammad Abd al-Qdir Shhn, 4 vols. in 2 (Beirut: Dr
al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1418/1997), 1:6.
80)
Abd al-Karm b. Muammad al-R, al-Tadwn f akhbr Qazwn, ed. Azz Allh
al-Urid, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1987), 2:146.
81)
Ibn al-Jawz, Kitb al-Mawt, 3:109-11; cf. al-Dhahab, Mzn al-itidl, 1:68; 3:619,
623.
Shams al-Dn al-Sakhw, the Indian Jaml al-Dn Muammad hir

al-Fatan (d. 986/1578-9) and Mull Al al-Qri have all repeated this
criticism, although some have also tried to advance interpretations of
the adth that eliminated its problematic meaning.82 Ibn al-Qayyim
states that this child is created from an impure zygote and that only
pure, good souls enter heaven. Ibn ajar and his student al-Sakhw
suggested that this adth assumes that the child would commit the
same sin as its parents.
Continuity and Intensication in the Modern Period

Content criticism burgeoned with the Muslim confrontation with
Western modernity and science. Influential reformist scholars like Sir
Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) in India and Muammad Abduh (d.
1905) in Egypt sought to recast Islam as a religion compatible with
rationalism. They did whatever possible to distance it from superstition
and Ptolemean cosmology.
These Muslim reformists found themselves treading a thin line.
Khan, Abduh and their followers were devout Muslims committed to
affirming the overall value of the Islamic scholarly tradition. Yet they
also critiqued what they saw as its excesses and deviations, arguing that
the religions true message was compatible with and representative of
the best of the modern world. If the Sunni adth tradition had authen-
ticated seemingly absurd reports like the adth of the Fly, how could
the corpus of adth be defended in a modern context? How deeply
were the reformists willing to critique the adth tradition, and how
could they justify revamping it? Material like the adth of the Fly
called into question whether classical Sunni adth scholars had actually
carried out content criticism at all.
Some modern Muslim thinkers have insisted that their premodern
forbearers rigorously carried out content criticism. One of Khans more
conservative disciples, the Indian writer Shibli Numani (d. 1916),
explains in the introduction to his modern rendition of the Sra that
82)
Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Manr al-munf, 133; Mull Al, al-Asrr al-marfa, 362, 370-71;
al-Sakhw, al-Maqid al-asana, 476; Muammad hir al-Fatan, Tadhkirat al-mawt,
180.
Muslim adth scholars did indeed engage in content criticism (he

terms it dirya criticism, or judging the truth of a report in the light
of ones previous knowledge or experience) as early as the time of the
Companions. He then cites the well-worn lists of content criticism
criteria found in the works of al-Khab and Ibn al-Jawz.83 More
recently, Ysuf al-Qaraw has concurred.84 Other reformists following
in Abduhs footsteps, such as the Egyptian intellectual Jaml al-Bann
(brother of asan al-Bann), believe that early adth critics totally
failed to examine the matn and see this failure as a prime argument for
the general unreliability of the adth corpus as it is today.85
Other modern ulam have tried to reconcile Sunnis stated meth-
odological commitment to content criticism with their evidently in-
consistent application. Ahmad Khan argued that the Islamic adth
tradition had in general cultivated a heritage of matn criticism, point-
ing to the omnipresent list of content criteria discussed above. But he
admitted that the great Sunni adth collectors of the third/ninth cen-
tury had not actually engaged in content criticism while compiling their
works. He opined that they had left this for later generationsthus
explaining any absurd material found in their books and excusing its
revaluation.86 The Egyptian Azhar reformist Muammad al-Ghazzl
(d. 1996) states proudly in his influential work al-Sunna al-nabawiyya
bayn ahl al-fiqh wa ahl al-adth that two of the five conditions for a
adth to be declared a involve vetting its meaning (namely, the
absence of hidden transmission flaws [illa] and of an anomalous mean-
ing [shudhdh]).87 In a later work, al-Ghazzl reiterates the standard
83)
Shibli Numani, Sirat-un-Nabi, trans. M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, 2 vols. (Lahore: Kazi
Publications, 1979), 1:40-1.
84)
Ysuf al-Qaraw, Kayfa natamalu maa al-sunna al-nabawiyya (Herndon, VA: Inter-
national Institute for Islamic ought, 1990), 33.
85)
Noha El-Hennawy, In Word and Deed: Reformist thinker Gamal El-Banna re-ignites
an age-old debate, contesting the role of Sunnah in modern-day Islam; Http://www.
egypttoday.com/article.aspx?Articleid=3351.
86)
Christian Troll, Sayyid Ahmad Khan: A Reinterpretation of Muslim eology (New Delhi:
Vikas Press, 1978), 138-9.
87)
Muammad al-Ghazzl, al-Sunna al-nabawiyya bayn ahl al-qh wa ahl al-adth, 11th
ed. (Cairo: Dr al-Shurq, 1996), 19. is statement brings up a signicant if understudied
debate among Sunni adth scholars. Does the denition of a a adth assume that, in
the case of a adth declared a, the adths meaning has already been vetted and
list of content criteria and celebrates the notion of the nose (malaka)
that scholars like Ibn Daqq al-d boasted for detecting forgeries.88 This
compliment, however, follows closely on the heels of a semi-sarcastic
remark that, in light of the absurd contents of some of their adths,
scholars like Ibn anbal seem to have completed only rough drafts of
their books.89
approved? e requirement for ia has been considered almost uniformly from the time
of Ibn al-al to be: a adth with an isnd of upstanding (adl), accurate (bi) narrators
one from another with no breaks, hidden aws (illa) or anomalousness (shudhdh). From
the fth/eleventh century onwards, a shdhdh adth has been understood as meaning a
adth that contradicts a source more reliable than it. e potential for a shdhdh quali-
cation to open the door to matn criticism is clear: a faulty meaning would entail that the
adth is contradicting some more powerful normative source, like the Qurn or reason,
thus rendering the adth hdhdh and precluding a a rating. e majority opinion of
late medieval and modern Muslim adth scholars, however, has also been that the term
a applies only to the isnd of a adth, and thus that the authenticity of a adth does
not necessarily follow from the authenticity of its isnd (iat al-isnd l yalzamu minh
iat al-adth), since its matn might be awed or contradict more reliable sources; Umar
b. Muammad al-Bayqn and Abdallh Sirj al-Dn, Shar Manmat al-Bayqniyya
(Aleppo: Maktabat Dr al-Fal, [n.d.]). 35; Ibn Kathr, Ikhtir Ulm al-adth, 36;
Muammad al-Ghazzl, Turthun al-kr, 8th ed. (Cairo: Dr al-Shurq, 2003), 173;
al-Albn in Numn al-ls, al-yt al-bayyint f adam sam al-amwt, ed. Muammad
Nir al-Dn al-Albn (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islm, 1405/[1985]), 54. Ibn al-al provides
a countervailing opinion, reminding his readers that any adth with a awed meaning
would by denition not have a a isnd, since that would undermine the whole reliance
on isnds to begin with. Rather, such a adth would necessarily be suering from some
undetected aw in its isnd. If a matn is not a in its meaning, says Ibn al-al, then
it is impossible (mul) that it have a a isnd. is disparity in understanding the
denition of ia led the modern Moroccan traditionalist Abdallh b. al-iddq al-Ghumr
(d. 1993) to the very controversial act of compiling a book of adths that he considered
shdhdh due to their meaning even though some appeared via authenticated isnds in the
aayn of al-Bukhr and Muslim. Revealing his understanding that previous scholars
had not taken shudhdh into consideration when declaring the matns of adths reliable,
he remarks about one anthropomorphic report that such a adth could not be accepted
even if it were narrated by the soundest of chains (aa al-asnd); Ab Amr Uthmn
b. Abd al-Ramn Ibn al-al, Fatw wa masil Ibn al-al, ed. Abd al-Mu Amn
Qalaj, 2 vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Marifa, 1406/1986), 1:174-5; Abdallh al-Ghumr,
al-Fawid al-maqda f bayn al-adth al-shdhdha wal-mardda (Casablanca: Dr
al-Furqn, [n.d.]), 105, 149.
88)
Muammad al-Ghazzl, Turthun al-kr, 157.
89)
Ibid., 147.
Other modern Muslim orthodox defenders of the adth tradition,

as well as conservative reformers, explained the seemingly glaring lack
of content criticism in much of the adth corpus through a division
of labor: whereas adth critics had focused on the isnd, jurists (fuqah)
had evaluated whether the meanings of adths accorded with Islamic
teachings. Responding to Goldzihers critique of the lack of content
criticism among early adth critics like al-Bukhr, the Ottoman arch-
traditionalist Muammad Zhid al-Kawthar (d. 1952) actually con-
cedes the point. Content criticism (naqd dkhil), he rebuts, was not
undertaken by adth critics. It was, however, performed by jurists:
The two groups divided up the [different] aspects of adth criticism
(wal-farqn taqsam wujh naqd al-adth).90
This division of labor and the admission that early adth critics did
not see content criticism as part of their duties provides a solution for
dealing with problematic adths today: even if a particular isnd is
a, it is ultimately the jurist who decides whether the accompanying
matn truly represents the Prophets teachings. For scholars like
al-Ghazzl and the current rector of al-Azhar, Shaykh Amad al-ayyib,
this division of labor serves as part of their effort to subordinate the
adth corpus to the jurists framework for interpreting Islamic law
(ul al-fiqh).91
Muslim reformist scholars like Abduh and Ri upheld the divine
origin of the Qurn and the Prophets teachings. In effect, however,
they accepted that modern science and ethical sensibilities are onto-
logically and epistemologically equal to or greater than the message of
revealed text. In the case of the Qurn, its historical reliability as a
document meant that defending it was not a question of authenticity
but of finding charitable interpretations for any verses that seemed to
clash with modernity. The adth corpus, plagued by forgery from the
beginning, has not enjoyed this protection.
The pre-modern Sunni surrender to the authority of a adths
as authenticated revelation, however, has survived alongside these re-
formers and their ruminations on content criticism. For Traditionalist
90)
Al-Kawthar, Maqlt, 150-1.
91)
Amad al-ayyib, personal communication, July 2008; al-Ghazzl, al-Sunna
al-nabawiyya, 32.
Salaf92 scholars, who see themselves as a direct continuation of the early

ahl al-adth movement, the moral and scientific world is still quite
literally constructed from and around the Qurn and adths. For Late
Sunni Traditionalists,93 who see themselves as direct continuations of
the later-Middle Period (in the Hodgsonian sense, i.e, circa 1200-1500
CE) institutional traditions of Islamic civilization, modernity is simi-
larly an upstart force that should quiver before the revealed truth and
the ummas preserved embodiment of it.
We see the tension between the notion of content criticism as an
objective method and fears of the subjective empowerment of reason
over revelation played out fiercely between Muslim reformists and tra-
ditionalists. An excellent example is the adth of the Sun Prostrating,
which acted as the centerpiece in a debate that raged furiously in Egypt
between Rashd Ri and a leading Mlik scholar and al-Azhar tradi-
tionalist, Ysuf al-Dijw (d. 1946). These two opponents contended
vociferously in the pages of their respective journals, al-Manr and
Majallat al-Azhar. In this particular adth, the Prophet explains to his
Companions that when the sun sets it proceeds before the throne of
God and seeks permission to rise once again. The adth is found in
the aayn and other relied-upon Sunni texts, and most versions of
the adth include a prediction that one day the sun will rise in the west
as a harbinger of the end of time.94
92)
I use this term to distinguish the group refered to here from modernist Salafs like
Muammad Abduh and Rashd Ri. For the questionable appropriateness of the term
Salaf as a description of Abduhs school, see Henry Lauzire, e Construction of Sala-
yya: Reconsidering Salasm from the Perspective of Conceptual History, International
Journal of Middle East Studies 42 (2010): 369-89. For a more extensive discussion of Tra-
ditionalist and Modernist Salasm, see Jonathan Brown, Hadith: Muhammads Legacy in
the Medieval and Modern World (Oxford: Oneworld, 2009), 243 .
93)
is term has emerged as a useful moniker for modern Sunni ulam who both perceive
and present themselves as the continuation of the very same medieval intellectual traditions
and institutions that Salafs and Islamic Modernists reject. See further Brown, Hadith,
261 .
94)
e report is narrated via Ab Dharr: a-tadrna ayna tadhhabu hdhahi al-shams?
See a al-Bukhr: kitb bad al-khalq, bb ifat al-shams wal-qamar; a Muslim: kitb
al-mn, bb bayn al-zaman alladh l yuqbalu fhi al-mn; Jmi al-Tirmidh: kitb
al-tan, bb m ja f ul al-shams min maghribih; ibid., kitb tafsr al-Qurn, bb min
srat Ysn; cf. Sunan Ab Dwd: kitb al-urf wal-qirt, bb 1.
Pre-modern Muslim commentators like al-Nawaw had devoted cur-

sory discussions to the metaphoric nature of the suns prostration, but
they had not spilled any great amount of ink on the adths meaning.95
For Rashd Ri, however, the adth provides the perfect example of
the limitations of pre-modern Muslim scholars transmission criticism
and how modern Muslims must reevaluate it. Classical critics like
al-Bukhr mastered transmission criticism, Ri attests, but content
criticism was not in their craft. Moreover, they had no inkling of
modern scientific discoveries. Today, Ri explains, we know based on
the certainties of sense perceptions that the adth of the Sun Pros-
trating is false. To lend his argument classical credibility, he refers explic-
itly to the post fifth/eleventh-century rule of content criticism that
rejects a report if it contradicts certainties and reason. Ri acknowl-
edges that one might understand this adth metaphorically but rejects
this option because it is riddled with affectedness (taklf ) and because
it breaks with the evident, literal meaning of the adth.96 For Ri, the
adths embarrassing clash with modern astronomical reality seems to
have closed the space for charitable interpretations that could have
reconciled the two. Or perhaps Ri was merely demanding an honest
and unaffected reading of the text.
Ri expressed unmasked contempt for those scholars who insisted
on the authenticity of such adths. In his reflections on his many
longstanding debates with al-Dijw and Majallat al-Azhar, Ri refers
to the adth of the Suns Prostration as a crystalline example of the
stubborn obscurantism of the unreformed al-Azhar scholars. Praising
Abduh for challenging the Azhar emphasis on blind obedience to
established texts, Ri bemoans how criticizing a adth that had been
deemed a could nonetheless result in a person being accused of
disbelief (kufr). This could occur even though material in adth books
clearly contradicts scientific empirical evidence and sense perception.97
Interestingly, Ri marshals evidence of how classical Muslim jurists
had themselves intimated that the adth of the Suns Prostration was
problematic. He cites the influential Shfi jurist and legal theorist
95)
Ibn ajar, Fat, 6:368; al-Nawaw, Shar a Muslim, 19 vols. in 10 (Beirut: Dr
al-Qalam, [n.d.]), 2:555.
96)
Rashd Ri, al-Manr 27, no. 8 (1926): 615-6.
97)
Ri, al-Manr wal-Azhar (Cairo: Mabaat al-Manr, 1353/[1934]), 19-20.
Imm al-aramayn al-Juwayn (d. 478/1085) as saying that the sun is

always visible somewhere, setting and rising in different places accord-
ing to latitude (it should be noted that al-Juwayns comment comes in
a discussion of prayer times and is not directly connected to the adth
of the Sun Prostrating).98 Ris exasperation mounts as he recounts
how some benighted al-Azhar scholars still defend the evident (hir)
meaning of the adth. He is stunned that some, like Ysuf al-Dijw,
even declare anyone who does not believe it an unbeliever.99
In truth, however, Ri seems to have been exaggerating al-Dijws
position. Al-Dijw was furious with Ri for choosing to opine arro-
gantly on all matters political and scientific without deference to the
interpretive tradition built up by Muslim scholars. In the case of the
adth of the Suns Prostration, Ri preferred to go so far as to claim
that Prophetic knowledge does not cover scientific matters rather than
to find some figurative interpretation for the adth. And how wide
the Arabic language is in the hands of one who knows it!, al-Dijw
protests.100 From al-Dijws perspective, Ri not only dismissed the
authentication process of al-Bukhr and Muslim but also constrained
the Prophets knowledge and rejected his words, an audaciousness that
is not permissible for a Muslim who believes in God and His Mes-
senger.101 For al-Dijw, it is not the contents of the adth that are
really in question in this debate. The suns prostration can always be
interpreted figuratively. Rather, it is the ontological and epistemologi-
cal standing of scripture vis--vis competing epistemologies, in this case,
modern science.
Interestingly, Muslim clerics had faced this competition before, if
only on the margin of their intellectual world. The anbal scholar of
Damascus, Ibn Rajab (d. 795/1392), rejects with complete scorn those
skeptical astronomers who had used their observations to dismiss
98)
Ibn ajar al-Haytam, al-Fatw al-adthiyya, 249.
99)
Ri rebuts the adth from another front as well, stating that he had found a aw (illa)
in its isnd; Ri, al-Manr wal-Azhar, 19-20.
100)
Ysuf al-Dijw, Maqlt wa fatw al-Shaykh Ysuf al-Dijw, ed. Abd al-R al-Dijw,
4 vols. (Cairo: Dr al-Bair, 2006), 4:1325. is article was originally published as hib
al-Manr wal-alt al rasl Allh () bad al-adhn, in Majallat al-Azhar 3, no. 5 (1351/
1932).
101)
Al-Dijw, Maqlt, 4:1327.
adths like the adth of Gods Descent (adth al-nuzl), in which

the Prophet states that God descends to the lowest heavens during the
last third of the night to hear the prayers of believers. The last third of
the night, protested these scientists, actually occurs at different times
in different lands. How could God descend in all of them? Ibn Rajab
responds sharply that, if the Prophet and the Companions had heard
such an objection, they would have immediately considered its author
a hypocrite and a rejector of Islam.102
A similar case illustrates the extent to which objections to the mean-
ings of a adth are amplified or diffused by the hegemonic context.
A adth appearing in a Muslim tells how, when Moses was ap-
proached by the Angel of Death to take his life, he struck the angel and
knocked out its eye. The angel complained to God, who healed the eye,
and then returned to Moses and completed his task.103 Premodern Mus-
lim scholars sensed the incomprehensibility of a human being knocking
out an angels eye as well as the problem of why a prophet would resist
an angel to begin with. Al-Nawaw reports that some godless folk
(malida) overtly doubted the adth based on what they saw as its
absurd meaning.104 Sunni scholars, however, resolved the confusion by
resorting to creative interpretations rather than questioning the authen-
ticity of the statements attribution to the Prophet. Q Iy b. Ms
(d. 544/ 1149) proposed that this authentic report (al-khabar al-a)
be understood as Moses defending himself against an unknown attacker,
for the Angel of Death had appeared initially in human form.105
Modern reformists have allowed no such charity for this adth.
A student of Ri who advanced a far more serious critique of the
102)
Ibn Rajab al-anbal, Fal ilm al-salaf al ilm al-khalaf, ed. Zuhayr Shwsh (Beirut:
al-Maktab al-Islm, 1430/2009), 23. Interestingly, Q Iy b. Ms uses the natural
motion of heavenly bodies to defend against skepticism about adths reporting that the
Prophet had miraculously split the moon as a sign for the unbelievers in Mecca. Responding
to the criticism that, if the moon had really been split, there would be reports of this
happening from lands and peoples throughout the world, Q Iy notes that the moon
appears in dierent areas at dierent times, rising and setting as night passes over various
locals. e moon might have been split only when it was visible to a certain area; Q
Iy b. Ms, Kitb al-Shif bi-tarf uqq al-Muaf (Beirut: Dr Ibn azm, 1423/2002),
176.
103)
a Muslim: kitb al-fail, bb fail Ms.
104)
Al-Nawaw, Shar a Muslim, 15:138-9.
105)
Q Iy, Kitb al-Shif, 365-6.
adth corpus than his teacher would ever have allowed, Mamd Ab
Rayya (d. 1970), considered this adth to be a perfect example of an
idiotic matn.106 Muammad al-Ghazzl also admits that its meaning
is unacceptable, since it is not conceivable that a prophet would resist
his fate.107
The adth of the Fly affords a fascinating example of the diachronic
tension over the content criticism of one adth. Third/ninth-century
Mutazils dismissed the adth as absurd, questioning how an animal
could carry both a disease and its cure. Classical Sunnis like Ibn Qutayba
committed themselves to countering this skepticism. The fourth/tenth-
century Shfi jurist amd al-Khab (d. 388/998) rebutted these
critics by pointing out that other animals, such as bees, do indeed com-
bine a poison and some benefit. Responding more directly to the ratio-
nalist criticism, he stated that the flesh of certain poisonous snakes is
used in concocting the antidote to their venom.108 Perhaps more suc-
cinctly than anyone, he reiterated the Sunni outlook on reason versus
revelation:
is is one of the issues denied by those who accept as proof only what their
external or internal senses apprehend (assuhu wa mushhadtuhu) and only
what they arm according to current convention (al-urf al-jr) and expe-
rience (al-tajriba al-qima). As for those whose hearts God has illuminated
with His knowledge and whose chests He has expanded with the establish-
ment of the prophethood of His Messenger (), indeed they do not reject
(yastankiru) it if it is established by narration (al-riwya) and the authen-
ticity of narration and receiving it via transmission together both obligate
submission to it (al-taslm) and dispense with the substance of any deviant
objections (yaqani mddat al-ashghb).109
106)
Mamd Ab Rayya, Aw al al-sunna al-muammadiyya (Cairo: Mabaat Dr
al-Talf, 1958), 198.
107)
Al-Ghazzl, al-Sunna al-nabawiyya, 35-38.
108)
Ab Sulaymn amd al-Khab, Alm al-adth f shar a al-Bukhr, ed.
Muammad Sad l Sud, 4 vols. (Mecca: Mahad al-Buth al-Ilmiyya, 1409/1988),
3:2142; Ibn ajar, Fat, 10:309. In an episode in the writings of Lucian of Samosata
(d. ca. 180 CE), this seems to be the motivation behind a man who has just been bitten
by an adder trying to catch it. See Lucian, e Works of Lucian of Samosata, trans. H.W.
Fowler & F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905), 3:236.
109)
Al-Khab, Alm al-adth, 3:2141-2.
In the modern period, these same arguments have been repeated,

with the added ingredient of modern medicine. In a landmark 1906
article in al-Manr, the Egyptian physician Muammad Tawfq idq
(d. 1920) launched a scathing attack on the Shariahs reliance on
adths. He cited the adth of the Fly as a key example of how Mus-
lims had admitted ridiculous material into their body of scripture. Not
only is pushing a fly into ones drink and then drinking it unsanitary,
it also contradicts other reports from the Prophet that instructed Mus-
lims to pour out oil or liquid butter into which a rodent had fallen.110
Although he did not share idqs extreme critique of the adth corpus,
Ri had to admit that the adth of the Fly was problematic. Ri
concluded that, since the adth was not massively transmitted
(mutawtir), believing in its meaning was optional. He directly repeated
al-Khabs statement about the flesh of a poisonous snake, however,
to buttress the scientific merit of the adth.111
A vigorous traditionalist defense of the authenticity and literal truth
of the adth of the Fly has been mounted recently by the Syrian lim
Khall Mull Khir. In his work al-Iba f iat adth al-dhubba,
Mull Khir defends both the isnd and the matn of the adth, argu-
ing that it is fully reliable and has been widely used by jurists from
almost every school of law. More importantly, he challenges the extreme
credence that many people have in modern science to begin with. He
remarks that throughout history much of what we thought was im-
possible has turned out to be otherwise.112 Especially in the twentieth
century, rapid changes in science continually render our notion of the
possible and impossible obsolete. For example, only a few years before
the United States landed a man on the moon many would have thought
such an accomplishment impossible.113
Mull Khir introduces an interesting methodological distinction
that he feels is lacking amongst adth skeptics: the difference between
what is considered bizarre or unlikely (yastaghribn) and what is impos-
sible (mustal). Impossibility is a quality inherent in a thing itself,
110)
Juynboll, e Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, 141.
111)
Ibid., 143.
112)
Khall Mull Khir, al-Iba f iat adth al-dhubba (Riyadh: Dr al-Qibla, 1405/
[1985]), 101.
113)
Ibid., 104.
whereas when we consider something bizarre or highly unlikely, we do

so because of the limitations of our own reason. It seems, says Mull
Khir, that skeptics of adth have confused what is impossible with
what is inconceivable or unacceptable to the Western worldview.114
A call for a humbler approach to Islamic scripture also comes from
Ysuf al-Qaraw. Regarding scientific skepticism towards adths, he
explains that the difference between Sunnis and Mutazils is that we
[Sunnis] look for possible interpretations (tawl, mamal) for adths.
This entails that, if a report is established by isnd criticism as having
come from the Prophet (idh aa thubtuhu), then it is a grave error
to reject it simply because one considers it rationally improbable
(istibdt aqliyya).115 In the case of adths long considered a,
al-Qaraw states that he prefers to trust them out of the fear that
perhaps the meaning has not been revealed to me yet.116 After all, he
reminds his readers, revealed religion can bring to mankind ideas or
rules that they cannot understand, such as the adth of the Fly. This
is not objectionable so long as an item of attributed revelation does not
go against reason.117
Conclusion
On the one hand, a scholar confronted with a adth can be governed
by a methodological sense of awe towards attributed revelation and a
commitment to reading it charitably. On the other hand, the scholars
willingness to accept the adth as revelation might be overpowered by
the extra-textual hegemony of reason, science or common sense.
The tension between these two reactions to texts has been a central
theme in Sunni scriptural scholarship. This tension is, in fact, built into
the very corpus of authoritative narrations on which the Sunni intel-
lectual tradition is built. The method of transmission criticism devel-
oped by early Sunnis was designed to remove the inherently subjective
mechanism of reason from the evaluation of a adths authenticity. Yet
114)
Ibid., 101-2.
115)
Al-Qaraw, Kayfa natamalu, 45-6.
116)
Ibid., 98.
117)
Ibid., 174.
even if scholars focused on transmission to determine reliability, a matn

that struck them as problematic or deviant invited special criticism of
its isnd and perhaps made finding some damning flaw inevitable. Thus,
subjectivity remained ingrained in the process.
The Ashar amalgamation of Mutazil rationalism with Sunni tenets
of faith raised this tension to the level of systemic, if minor, schizo-
phrenia in the Sunni methodology of adth criticism. Sunni adth
scholars from the fifth/eleventh century onward were committed to
definitive rules of content criticism even though these same scholars
often affirmed the original Sunni/Ahl al-adth principle of subordinat-
ing reason to the power of revelation. Certainly, Sunni scholars agreed
that one could dismiss a adth for content reasons only after one had
searched for reconciliatory readings. But the extent to which one might
comfortably depart from the literal meaning of a adth or the amount
of charity one extended it depended on both the perspective and incli-
nation of the scholar in question. As such, the same adth might strike
some Muslim scholars as having an unacceptable meaning while others
might integrate it into their religious worldview. A scholar like
al-Dhahab leapt on the evident meaning of adths that struck him as
false without exerting much effort at finding an acceptable interpreta-
tion. Conversely, Mull Al al-Qri tended to exhaust alternative inter-
pretations for adths whose isnds were passable.
The most noticeable shift in discourse over content criticism occurs
with the Muslim confrontation with Western modernity. Like European
Christian scholars in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Muslim
clerics in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries had to contend
with a force that, for the first time, presented a daunting challenge to
the supremacy of revelation (or attributions of revelation in the case of
adths) as the chief structure behind their scientific, historical and
ethical world. adths like that of the Fly or the Sun Prostrating had
raised eyebrows in the premodern era, but in the modern period rever-
ence for the text and willingness to indulge hermeneutic gymnastics
shriveled before a fear of appearing backwards or unscientific.
The great question underlying this discourse is the broader problem
of distinguishing between the absolute and the relative, between a real-
ity existing apart from us and our own convention. In Greek this dicho-
tomy was conceived of as that of Physis (nature) and Nomos (law)what
is the truly real and natural order as opposed to a cultures convention.

Our species has erred frequently in confusing Nomos with Physis. This
was Pauls mistake when he told his Corinthian audience that physis
(nature) tells us that long hair is beautiful on women but shameful on
men (the royal family of the Merovingian Franks would disagree). This
is where Seneca erred in his criticism of transvestites: Do you not think
that it is living unnaturally (contra naturam) to exchange ones clothes
for womens?118 Ibn Khaldn (d. 808/1406) manifested the same
navet when he dismissed a report of Harun al-Rashids sister seducing
one of the Barmakid viziers, objecting that she was a noble Arab woman
descended from the men around Muammad and his uncles, so such
a sin would be beneath her.119
The distinction between Physis and Nomos underlies the challenge
of drawing the line between the probable and improbable, the possible
and impossible. Our own Nomos almost always defines what we believe.
It seems much rarer for an agnostic attitude to lead us to an openness
to the possible rather than skepticism of it. Only a scholar as humble
as Montaigne (d. 1592), fresh in the wake of the European discovery
of the wondrous New World, could warn his readers against pretending
to a knowledge of the farthest extent of possibility and conflating the
impossible and the unusual.120 The founding ethos of Sunni Islam was
to subordinate mans inevitably limited Nomos to the certainty of rev-
elation. One can imagine Mull Khir enjoining both Paul and Seneca
to heed the distinction between what is unnatural and what a persons
own bias and background make him reject. Mull Khir is very Sunni
in his writing, reminding us that reason is never free from the blinders
of convention and ignorance. As Pindar observed early on in human
memory, custom (Nomos) is king of all.121
118)
1 Corinthians 11: 15-16; Seneca, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium, xxii:7.
119)
Ibn Khaldn, e Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans. Franz Rosenthal, ed.
N.J. Dawood (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 18-19.
120)
Michel de Montaigne, Les Essais, ed. Denis Bjai et al. (Paris: La Pochothque, 2001),
278 (Book I: 26).
121)
Herodotus, Histories, Book III: 38. See also Montaigne, who observes that we seem
to have no other criterion for truth and reason than the type and kind of opinions and
customs current in the land where we are; Montaigne, 318 (Book 1: 30).

The Rules of Matn Criticism There Are No Rules Islamic Law and Society PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Rules of Matn Criticism There Are No Rules Islamic Law and Society PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Islamic Law

e Rules of Matn Criticism: ere Are No Rules

Jonathan A.C. Brown

such [claims] probable. Today it is a certainty born of the unanimous testimony

The early Sunnis proposed their system of transmission criticism as

to be scripture need to conform to our understanding of the world? Is

Arming the Rules for Content Criticism in Sunni Islam

A famous statement attributed to Al b. Ab lib also gained currency

al-Khab al-Baghdd, al-Kifya f marifat ul ilm al-riwya, ed. Ab Isq Ibrhm

In this work, al-Khab explains that there exists an entire category

1) reason (al-uql) rejects as impossible, such as the notion that there is no

The list of culpatory contents registered by al-Khab influenced almost

on the enigmatic sage al-Khair, adths denigrating black Africans,

ars regularly reminded their readers that, before dismissing a problem-

out unreliable adths to that of a moneychanger intuitively knowing

This intuitive sense was further elaborated by the Moroccan adth

e Converse: Sunni Rejection of Content Criticism in eory

found the contents of many of these adths reprehensible, but phras-

We do not resort except to that to which the Messenger of God () resorted.

Tension between Subjective Reason and Submission to Claims of

The second report is a Companion statement that appears in main-

of the Messenger of God () except what is known, understood and of

that adths condemning music, which appear in collections like

such problematic reports in a favorable and pietistic light? Although

Two Extremes on Content Criticism: Shams al-Dn al-Dhahab

Al-Dhahab rejects some adths based on their illogical or unreasonable

Mull Al al-Qri, however, represents the opposite extreme of the

al-arsh thumma unqush),72 he instructs, for the issue centers first on

e Subjectivity of Content Criticism on Specic adths in

in which adth critics reacted to the same reports. An example comes

Indeed, it was precisely the non-entropic view of the ummas future

Shams al-Dn al-Sakhw, the Indian Jaml al-Dn Muammad hir

Continuity and Intensication in the Modern Period

Muslim adth scholars did indeed engage in content criticism (he

Other modern Muslim orthodox defenders of the adth tradition,

Salaf92 scholars, who see themselves as a direct continuation of the early

Pre-modern Muslim commentators like al-Nawaw had devoted cur-

Imm al-aramayn al-Juwayn (d. 478/1085) as saying that the sun is

adths like the adth of Gods Descent (adth al-nuzl), in which

In the modern period, these same arguments have been repeated,

whereas when we consider something bizarre or highly unlikely, we do

even if scholars focused on transmission to determine reliability, a matn

is the truly real and natural order as opposed to a cultures convention.

Você também pode gostar